rolls-royce. >> five generations of publishing sunday night 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a, listen to q&a on the free c-span now app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including spark life. >> we are all facing our greatest challenge. this will keep you connected. it's a little easier to do yours. >> a public service along with these other television providers. i front row seat to democracy.

♪♪ humanitarian relief to gaza about the scheduled to take place tonight 7:00 p.m. eastern to officially begin debate on the bill. the senate currently plan to work to the weekend on legislation the final bill expected by tuesday. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. ... will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

o lord, may our hearts be open to receive your guidance. help us to bow to your will and live lives devoted to your bless our senators. let faith, hope, and love abound in their lives. lord, use them to heal our hurting nation and world and to be forces hurting world and to be forces for harmony, goodness, and peace. may they hunger for your wisdom and make decisions that will

honor you. open their minds and give them a vision of the unlimited possibilities available to those who trust you as their guide. we pray in your sovereign name . amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., february 9, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing

rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable chris van hollen, a senator from the state of maryland,'to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 815, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 30, h.r. 815 an act to amend title 38 united states code, and so forth and for other purposes.

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: mr. president, i'll be brief. yesterday the senate cleared the first major procedural hurdle to passing the national security supplemental. it was a good and very important first step. we now resume postcloture debate on the motion to proceed. if we don't reach a time agreement, we will hold the next vote on the motion to proceed at approximately 7:00 p.m. tonight. but i hope our republican colleagues can work with us to reach an agreement on amendments so we can move this process along. democrats are willing to consider reasonable and fair amendments here on the floor, as we've shown on many occasions in the past three years. nevertheless, the senate will keep working on this bill until the job is done. i yield the floor.

i thought as good idea get out of iraq in 2011. i issued a statement about our withdrawal in 2011. i said i was respect to disagree with present obama to all we work for for sacrifice for his very much in jeopardy of today's announcements. am wrong and the the present is right. i fear this decision has put in motion the heart our country here the isis was not the jv team. a lot of people slaughtered throughout the planet about the ill-advised decision. so we got out of afghanistan. president biden chose to do

that. i've got a statement. i'll put in the record. i was very clear that if we get out of afghanistan, pull all the troops, that there will be reemergence of al-qaeda and isis and that would be great made of people in this decision the present leiden, a disaster in the making. so a lot of republicans agree with those two things. my republican colleagues if you pull the plug on ukraine, it's going to be worse than afghanistan. the idea of pulling the plug on ukraine, and it will not affect our national security, is a fantasy. it was clear to me that getting out of iraq in 2011 was too soon and would lead to the rise of radical islamic terrorists. it literally took half the country, kill people in paris in here and everywhere else. now were back in iraq, should have got out in the first place.

bottom line about afghanistan, i know it was a long slog and people wanted out, but the taliban took over within weeks. and the taliban being in charge of afghanistan led to other people in the world thinking, hey, america is weak, now is a time to pounce. so in 2021 the withdrawal from afghanistan, taliban takeover. 2022 russian invades ukraine. that's been a complete disaster. 2023 hamas attacks israel killing more jewish people than any time since the holocaust. 2024, iranian proxies are killing american soldiers and their running wild throughout the world. other than that, everything is pretty good. now, having said all that, my point is i

mr. mcconnell: the administration released its request for supplemental appropriations in october. i said the senate would need to do its own work to meet the demonstrated needs of our national security. the president's decisions over the past three years have directly contributed to the web of serious security challenges

demanding the senate's attention. from an embarrassing retreat from afghanistan that emboldened terrorists and shredded credibility with our allies to a halting response to russian escalation that kept lethal capabilities off the front lines of ukraine's defense, to an iran policy that tried trading deterrents for detente, the senate can and will continue to urge the commander in chief to do the right thing. but we also have a responsibility of our to provide for the common defense and equip the next commander in chief with the tools to exercise american strength. that responsibility is in front of us right now, and addressing national security challenges with serious legislation starts with recognizing some pretty basic realities about how the

world works. first, america has global interests and global respons responsibilities, and to the extent the president has neglected them, the senate ignores them at the nation's peril. second, alliances and partnerships are essential to advancing our interests. they lower the cost of keeping the peace, reduce the direct risks to america, and facilitate the commerce that drives our economy. but these alliances and partnerships rely on american leadership and american credi credibility. and finally, there's a growing list of adversaries who wish us harm. there's growing evidence that they're working together. and there's no doubt that they're emboldened by american

wea weakness. these are not opinions, but plainly observable facts borne out by history. denying them does a disservice to the american people, and it's impossible to engage productivity on decisions about u.s. national security without acknowledging them. so, a great number of our colleagues have worked diligently on legislation that confronts russian aggression against the west, iranian-backed terror against israel and u.s. forces, and the rise of an aggressive china head on. the product before the senate resolves the significant shortcomings of the president's request. for example, thanks to senate republicans it requires the commander in chief to submit a strategy that identifies the specific objectives, requirement, and metrics for our assistance to ukraine.

it shifts $4 billion away from direct budget support in keefe into security investments ins instead. and it fully funds the special inspector general for ukraine, created by the ndaa last year, further expanding already unprecedented visibility into how u.s. assistance could actual be used. the legislation also designates $9 billion above the president's request for u.s. defense needs, including $2.4 billion for ongoing operations against iran-backed terroristsin the middle east. thanks to republican efforts, it imposes strict new oversight measures on humanitarian assistance and ensures not a single penny of u.s. taxpayer funds goes to the u.n. agency whose employees stoke hatred in gaza and actually participated in the slaughter of jews in

israel. underneath these essential provisions sit historic and urgent investments in american hard power, which is critical to our national defense. our allies and partners in ukraine and israel are fighting our shared adversaries, degrading their military capacity, and working to restore deterrence. our friends in the pacific are working to deter yet another one. together, they're facing the raw end of authoritarian aggression and terrorist savagery, and our colleagues have heard me say this before, american assistance in these efforts is not charity, it's an investment in cold, hard u.s. interests. this is not a rhetorical device. it's not referring to some vague lines of efforts from which

american -- from which america expects to receive some trickle-down benefits. i mean quite literally spending tens of billions of dollars here in america upgrading our capabilities, creating american manufacturing jobs, and expanding our defense industrial capacity to help us better compete with advanced adversaries. of just the funds this supplemental designates to support israel's and ukraine's defense, $19.85 billion of it will be spent right here in america on replenishing our own arsenal. another 3.5 billion will be spent, again, here in america to expand our industrial base's capacity to produce artillery, air defense, and long-range weapons. and 15.4 billion will be spent,

one more time, here in america, on weapons for ukraine to continue degrading the military strength of a major u.s. adversary. these investments create capacity that we, the united states, need for serious competition with our adve adversaries. of course, this doesn't even account for the massive streams of funding our allies and partners around the world are investing in american capabilities themselves, including more than $120 billion and counting from nato allies. overall, even accounting for direct assistance sent to allies like israel, more than 75% of this legislation is bound for investments right here in america, and more than 60% of it goes to the defense industrial

base where increasing capacity is a direct investment in long-term strength abroad and prosperity here at home. this is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we're serious about exercising american strength. i can present these facts as frequently as necessary. it's what i've been doing quite literally for years. every one of our colleagues is capable of understandings that -- of understanding that security assistance appropriators in support of ukraine is money invested right here in america. every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that the investments this legislation makes in expanding production capacity, from artillery rounds to rocket motors to submarines, are investments in readiness for

long-term competition with china, a competition america cannot afford to lose. every single one of us knows what's at stake here, and it's time for every one of us to deal with it head-on. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me say at the outset i thank the senator from kentucky for his words from the floor in support of assistance to ukraine in its hour of need, and i thank him for being consistent in that message. yesterday, after months of d delay, 17 republican senators joined in a bipartisan efforts to -- effort to advance critical security and humanitarian aid. i want to thank them for stepping up and urge them to continue moving this bill to

final passage and moving it to passage in the house of representatives. all the while, while we're giving our speeches here on the floor of the senate and other places, vladimir putin has been sitting back and waiting for the united states to finally walk away from the ukrainians as they fight bravely to rappel his bloody onslaught. putin is hoping donald trump will be reelected and that this congressional will discontinue aid to ukraine. meanwhile, the message man for the maga movement, tucker carlson, was in moscow interviewing the former communist kgb agent, vladimir putin, hoping, no doubt, to further his cynical strategy. is there anyone here who could remotely have imagined that many in the party of ronald reagan and john mccain would be actively voting against aid to stop russian tyranny, that they

would bend to the will of a former president trump, who has spoken favorably of the russian despot? mr. president, this photograph captures a moment a few years ago. wrong photograph. captures a moment 37 years ago at the brandenburgh gate, between east and west germany, when president reagan stood resolutely for freedom and told gorbachev to tear down the wall. now, this second photograph is more personal to me. about ten years ago, when senator john mccain and i were part of a delegation that represented colleagues from arizona, north dakota, rhode island, and wyoming, we went to ukraine's maidan square in kiev to honor those killed in the fight for freedom.

i'm not alone in asking the same question that was asked yesterday by the polish prime minister, donald tusk. he said ronald reagan, who helped millions of us win back their freedom and independence, must be turning over in his grave with what's happening now in washington. mr. president, the polish people are staunch allies of ukraine and the united states, and they have long memories of soviet tyr tyranny. they know the critical american resolve is part of overcoming that tyranny, and we should neff forget it. i'm proud to represent the city of chicago and state of illinois, and there are many polish americans there, great people. i think what they have done during this ukrainian war is an amazing story. they have literally embraced the refugees from ukraine. as one of the polish officials told me, senator, you won't find a refugee camp for ukrainians in

poland. we bring them into our homes. it's an amazing outporing. when you ask them what is motivating you, he said we remember no one would do that for us when we faced the same tyranny in our own history. they made a difference. it's not just because of their love for their enables in ukraine, but it's also the realization that if vladimir putin conquers ukraine, the next target would easily be poland or the baltic nations. they know that this fight, which is being waged against putin and ukraine, is their fight. we should realize the same. next week a bipartisan group of us are attending the munich security conference. it's an annual conference in germany, where we bring together the european nuptials and -- european nations and many others to discuss topics of the day.

you can bet the number one topic will be ukraine. god forbid we fail to pass this defense supplemental before the munich conference. i don't know what i will say to our friends and allies in nato and in europe who've stood by us and by the ukrainian people for so long, if we abandon them here in the united states senate. the first question they will ask is will we approve the money necessary to buy the ammunition and equipment for the ukrainians to fight on. we're going to answer that question here in the united states senate in just a matter of hours. nato secretary general stoltenberg recently said if putin isn't stopped, he will continue his war beyond ukraine, with grave consequences. make no mistake, it's not only putin watching and savoring our failure to act, it's iran, china, north korea, and many others. so let's get this done. let show putin and the other tyrants of the world they cannot

divide and weaken us, at home or with our allies abroad. for months, my republican colleagues refused to provide critical aid to ukraine, israel, gaza and taiwan and to address urgent national security and humanitarian needs until we would consider and pass legislation to secure the american border. this week, we had an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill that would help us to secure the border and provide this essential national security funding. i had some concerns about the language in this, but i realized it was a bipartisan compromise. senator james lankford, speaking for the republicans, had been negotiating literally for weeks to get the right lambnguage tha could appeal to both democrats and republicans. want to thank senator murphy and senator sinema for her resolve as well. while i had some concern about the proposals, i said i was prepared to support it with some

changes, and i'm happy to report that it received the support of the national border patrol council, the union that represents border patrol agents. despite all of this, senate republicans said they wanted to offer amendments. well, the way to offer an amendment is first to pass a motion to proceed to the bill. when that measure came up for support, we didn't have enough republican support to pass it on the floor. almost immediately after the bill was released, numerous senate republicans came out in opposition to it. when the bill came to the floor, they voted not even to consider it. why? why? because donald trump told them not to. and he was very bold about it. he said blame me, if you will. but any attempt to make border security changes should be stopped now so he can use the issue in the campaign. he said blame it on me if the bill fails. well, we will. trump is apparently fearful that a bipartisan effort to secure the border would undermine his

campaign rhetoric. his interference could not have come at a worse time. we're facing the worst refugee crisis in modern history. with outdated laws and underfunded agencies, our immigration system is not up to the challenge. as a result, many migrants are stuck in our processing backlogs for years without a work permit. mr. president, most people don't know this fact, but i want to make it for the record. we have had about 36,000 migrants come into the city of chicago primarily from texas. they were sent there under false pretenses that there was accommodations waiting and a job waiting for them. that was not the case. but the governor of texas didn't care. and he didn't care about their outcome and their plight. 36,000 trying to find shelter for them. someone went to police stations, slept on the floor. some slept in churches. catholic charities did an amazing job as well as many

others to try to take care of them. and it's been a real hardship on the city of chicago and the state of illinois. 36,000 people. mr. president, there's one thing that most people don't realize. in the past year and a half, we have absorbed in chicago 30,000 ukrainian immigrants who have come from war-torn ukraine to the city of chicago. now, i hope you can understand the city that has a section known as ukrainian village certainly welcomes these people. families that sponsor them said that they would stand by them and they became part of our society and part of our economy quickly without a lot of rancor and with the understanding of people that they were going to add to america and they were in desperate need. 30,000 ukrainians absorbed into chicago without much fanfare. i've seen them at the churches and their schools, working in restaurants, doing the kind of

work that immigrants are used to doing in america. but the 36,000 who came in as migrants from texas were sent in by the busload without any warning and without any effort to try to assimilate them into the area before they arrived. the difference is very stark. the legislation that we were going to consider before the republicans killed it would have created a new system to process migrants quickly. it would have funded our frontline officials and immigration officers with $20 billion to ensure that they were processed efficiently. think about that. the republicans have been saying publicly for months that we need more resources at the border to stop the onslaught of people who are arriving. and they also believe -- and i share the belief -- that we need more surveillance at the border not only for those coming across the border but also for those bringing across the border narcotics and other contraband dangerous to america. so the bill which they stopped

this week with their vote on the floor would have provided $20 billion to ensure that they would be processing efficiently at the border and preparing $20 billion at least in new technology and resources to stop the onslaught of narcotics and drugs. it would have ensured that asylum seekers with legitimate claims could get a work permit quickly and start working as so many businesses across the nation need. despite my concerns about this legislation because it left out dreamers, i was prepared to consider it and support it. the dream act was a measure that i introduced some 22 years ago in an effort to give these young people who are brought to this country by their parents and who grew up here and became part of america a chance to finally prove themselves, to earn their way into citizenship. i think it should be included in any measure that addresses immigration from this point forward. i hope we can all agree on one

thing. we need to work together in a bipartisan way to secure the border after years of congressional failure. bipartisanship requires compromise. after all the senate tv appearances, campaigns at the border and impassioned speeches on the floor, it only took one man to destroy this agreement, this hard-fought bipartisan agreement, donald trump. i know my republican colleagues understand the urgent need to secure the border. i'm disappointed that they would let their fear of one man stop this body from doing its job. mr. president, we still have a chance to do the right thing when it comes to security. we can stand behind the people in ukraine who are fighting bravely every single day. i cannot imagine how america can explain to the world why it would walk away from this battle against vladimir putin. we know his ambitions beyond ukraine are terrible and innocent people will suffer. let's let the ukrainian soldiers

fight bravely with our support, with a vote in the senate today.

>> so let's sort of overview where were at here. everything my colleagues on the democratic side said about helping ukraine makes perfect sense to me. i think we need to help ukraine. i thought is really bit idea to

get out of iraq in 2011. i i issued a statement about our withdrawal in 2011. i said i respectfully disagree with president obama for all we've worked for, fought for, sacrifice for his very much in jeopardy by today's announcement. hope i am wrong in the president is right. i fear this decision was set in motion event so come back to haunt our country. the isis was not the jv team. a lot of people slaughtered throughout the planet because of that ill-advised decision. so we got out of afghanistan. president biden chose to do that. i get a statement here i'll put in the record. i was very clear that if we get out of afghanistan, pull all the troops, that the will be reemergence of al-qaeda in isis, and that the will be great major upheaval is this decision by president biden is a disaster in the making.

so a lot of republicans agree with those two things. my republican colleagues, if we pull the plug on ukraine, it's going to be worse than afghanistan. the idea of pulling the plug on ukraine, and it will not affect our national security, is a fantasy. it was clear to me that getting out of iraq in 2011 was too soon and would lead to the rise of radical islamist terrorist. they literally took over half the country, killed people in paris and here and everywhere else. now we're back in iraq, should never got out in the first place. the bottom line about afghanistan, i know it was a long slog and people wanted out, but the taliban took over within weeks. and the taliban being in charge of afghanistan led to other people in the world thinking, hey, america is weak, now is the time to pounce. so in 2021 we withdraw from

afghanistan. the taliban takeover. 2222, russian invades ukraine. that's been a complete disaster. 2023, hamas attacks israel, killing more jewish people than any time since the holocaust. 124, iranian proxies are killing american soldiers and their running wild throughout the world. other than that, everything is pretty good. now, having said all that, my point is i want to help ukraine, israel and taiwan. i really do. i think it's in our national security interest to do all the above. but i've also said from like day one i want to other countries but we have to help our country first. and what do i mean by that? i mean that the border is not just broken, it is a complete nightmare. it's a national security disaster in the making.

7 million people come across the border illegally. a lot of people on the terror watch list. so it is been a nightmare, and we tried to sit down and a bipartisan way. senator murphy, senator sinema, senator lankford and others said that he come up with a bipartisan proposal that i thought did a pretty good job in many ways. however, having said that, i didn't think it was enough. i was hoping that they would have build on what they did, but here's where were at. the house declared it insufficient. the republican -- >> with the sender yield to a question. >> was just. >> thank you. senator, i was listening carefully to speech and you mention that you thought the bill we have drafted and it is just it was a good start but not enough. i'm wondering if you would remind us how you voted

yesterday on the motion to proceed to the bill that had the border package that we worked on together? >> be glad to get iphoto because i didn't see a process in place or willingness by my democratic colleagues to allow me to express, i think it could be better. see, in the gang of eight, you weren't here but senator mccain was, we worked really hard. senator bennet has been involved in all the stuff in 2013. i will let the bill come to the four come people amid we spent days and weeks. so that's why i voted no, because -- no. i reclaim speedy would you -- >> here's what i'm saying. this has been a half ass effort to do with border security. to the people in the house -- i'm speaking. you can speak later. do the people in house, we have not really tried hard to secure the border. we took a well-meaning product, people work really hard.

i applaud you and others for coming out with a product of a thought had a lot of good things in it but not enough for me. so now i can't even vote, we have closed out the border debate and you may give me a few amendments on ukraine about the border. that's not the way it works around here. so -- >> take a question? >> no. to my house colleagues, you can do better than this. don't send us back h.r. two. it's not going anywhere. you know, you couldn't get all republicans for h.r. to make it we lost one republican and a democrat. so this idea we've done enough on the border is bs. i am not done. i'm not going to help ukraine until we first do a better job helping ourselves. i have given people involved credit for working hard to get a product, but the system in place now, take it or leave it. the reason i voted down is i didn't see any willingness by anybody to allow an amendment

process where we could deal with the border issue. i am getting an amendment on the ukraine bill about border -- >> question? >> no. that aspect backwards. during the gang of eight and other events, we had a robust amendment process. let me tell you i think there are things we can do to make it better. the 5000 a day encounter the kicks in an emergency authorities shut down the border, here's what the border counsel said. 5000 5000 encounters a day a catastrophe. 1000 encounters a day would be a substantial improvement. it is truly an emergency. i was hoping we could talk about that. now, we may get a vote on that on the ukraine bill. we have close out a debate on the border -- >> question? >> yes. >> thank you. senator graham i know you been there quite a bit longer than me but it is my understanding that

in order to get to the portion of the bill where we offer amendments on the floor, we first have to pass the motion to proceed. and it is also my understanding that it was offered by leadership and the three sponsors of the border bill, which your team gratefully help us create, that we would have an open amendment process. so could you help me understand why you voted against the motion to proceed before we were able to offer any amendment? >> yes. i think the fix is in. i think people are our side in your side wanted to do the border thing as quick as they could so we could get to ukraine. and i don't trust the system here to be able to allow us to have the debate that we had for the gang of eight bill. that's why i voted no, because i didn't see any willingness and my, proved to be correct. because now the republican leadership has joined with the democratic leadership to shut

down debate on the border bill knowing that a few amendments on ukraine bill and say are you happy now? no, i am not happy. i am not happy. i admit it that it wanted to secure the border but help you can come anything you said about ukraine is right. i was not kidding to our colleagues in the house. we have done a half ass job you try to secure the border. we shut this thing down, unlike any other time i've been involved in immigration. i've taken a lot of hard votes, you've taken a lot of hard, you know, you've been kicked around i understand it, senator lankford i admire the hell out of it. i thought y'all produce a pretty good product, a really good product some areas but it wasn't enough. i want to cap on parole declivity what i want a cap on parole. during the trump obama years, the average people paroled in the country was 5600. 5600. in the last two years president biden's paroled over 800,000 people. so the parole was better but we

need a cap to stop the abuse. i would like to have an amendment on whether not we should cap parole at 10,000 per year, but i'm getting that on the ukraine bill. so to my colleague from arizona, no, no, no. this is not been a real effort to define border security and a bipartisan way. we took your product, take it or leave it. the reason i voted no to proceed is exactly been reaffirmed here. we stopped the process. weird jump and uk. we are going to do this weekend and it's going nowhere in the house. for those of you who want to help ukraine, you have made it harder. we're going to lose a handful of republican votes over here because they felt they were shut out in the debate about how to secure the border. [inaudible] >> no, please. were going to lose votes over here. you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it through the house because we took the border issue and we

didn't address it the way it should have been. we closed it out. i could see that game being fixed. i'm here as a proud supporter of ukraine telling you that you've hurt the cause of ukraine by trying to shortchange a debate on the border. your product was good but bt to make it better. i've got a national border patrol council letter about three things that would make it better. i would like to introduce it in the record if i could. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. now going to close this thing out. here's what's going to happen. you may get this bill passed without any border but is going nowhere in the house. the house has made it crystal clear to get money for ukraine and other foreign countries, we got help our own. our border is on fire and i give you credit, senator from arizona be given trying to fix it. i appreciate what you trying to do but the system we have

employed to my colleague from arizona is unlike any i've ever seen. that we're going to take a consequential moment in american history kind of break secure, and broken border, and not even bring it to the floor for fl debate. the reason i voted to proceed is because i saw what was happening. our people in the side have been obsessed with ukraine to the point of ignoring our border. the people who will vote no to ukraine of always believed that the border was an excuse evisce. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. tester: that's good. i'll just go. i want to thank you for the recognition, mr. president. i don't need to tell the people in this body or the other side of the capitol that the public view of washington, d.c., is not very good. our numbers and public opinion numbers oftentimes are in the

single digits, and they're there for a good reason. they're there because oftentimes people only see politics here all the time. they see bodies and individuals that work for the parties. they don't work for the good of america. in what we saw earlier this week just confirms that. where we had a bill that came out to address border security, particularly on the southern border, but it does good things for the northern border, too. but it addresses border security in this country. where we're seeing people coming across the border, the southern border in particular. we don't know who they are. and it's just flat a national security issue. when i go home to montana, i hear it from everybody. i hear it from families, from

business owners, from policemen to mayors -- you name it. in montana -- and i don't think montana is different from any other state -- this is a big issue. people understand the southern border is broken, and they want us, the folks that serve in washington, d.c., their representatives to the government, to do something about it. now, over the last many years, multiple administrations, we've seen people go to the border and talk about how things are really bad down there, they're about a bad -- they're bad because we've got undocumented folks coming across the border in record numbers. we've got fentanyl coming into the country ruining families and killing people. and then they go back and say how miserably bad it is on the

southern border and how it needs to be fixed. they're right. unfortunately, this shouldn't be about press releases and e-mails and newsletters and interviews at night. this should be about getting something done to fix the problem. so what transpired about four months ago is we had a bill on the floor then funding for ukraine. i believe there was funding for israel. i believe there was funding for the indo-pacific in it. and there were some in this body that said, this bill is going know where -- nowhere until we get something that addresses the problems at the southern border. i was standing right over there when one of the senators said, we get southern border -- republican -- democrats get

ukraine funding. well, he was wrong. the truth is the united states gets southern border protection and the united states citizens get to help ukraine and support democracy and make sure that putin isn't successful in taking over ukraine and ultimately the rest of europe. but nonetheless, there's three people that went out, were given the blessing to negotiate a bipartisan -- which is the way things should be done around here and are done around here -- a bipartisan southern border bill. the two people -- the republican and the democrat -- or the democrat and the republican, however you want to place it -- happen to be the chairman and ranking member of the homeland appropriations subcommittee. the other was a member who was an independent that lives in a state that borders the southern

border, arizona. so these folks went down and they worked and worked and worked. i've been part of these negotiations. quite frankly, they're never easy. nobody gets everything they want. there's compromise. there's negotiations. and in the end, you thread the needle and you come up up with a bill that actually secures the southern border, that, by the way, any one of those three negotiators would tell you they would not have written of themselves, but through the negotiating process, they came up with a bill -- and i'm going to he will it you -- and i'm going to tell you it was a pretty darn good bill. they rolled it out last sunday night for all of us to see, some 300-plus pages. i got to read that bill. but the interesting thing is before the bill was even rolled out, some of the folks that serve in this body said, i oppose it.

before they even had a chance to look at it. they said, i oppose it. because they were told to oppose the bill. now, look, we're all elected by our citizens in our states to come here. i would hope we all have a mind -- i would hope we all can think and i would hope we all can discern fact from fiction. but when somebody says vote against it and you just vote against it, after you've been in our state, you've heard what a big issue this is, and you've considered what can happen if we do nothing versus what could happen if we do something, and yet for political purposes -- not because it's bad policy but for political purposes a person says, don't fix it, and almost -- almost like a cult people here said, we're voting no.

many have not read it t -- read it. it's unbelievable to me, and i've seen a lot of hypocrisy in this place, but it's unbelievable to me the hypocrisy in that vote. as a condition of national security and folks in this body turn their back on fixing the problem. why? because they want to keep it a political issue, which is exactly why the people look at washington, d.c., and say, you know what? those folks don't represent us. they're in it for themselves. they just want everything to be an upheaval. it confirms that thought. so what's the bill do? what does this compromise bill do for america?

it funds $20 billion in security for the southern border for manpower, for technology, and to attack the fentanyl crisis. which is a scourge on this country. it includes the fentanyl act which puts serious harm to china's wallet for putting the precursor elements to fentanyl into mexico. it changes the asylum laws. it raises the bar exponentially and stops folks who come to the border illegal lay from gaming the system -- illegally from gaming the system. it requires -- it requires the president to shut down the border when they can't handle the people. look, don't take my word for it.

the national border patrol council, some 18,000 border patrol agents have endorsed this bill. these are the folks that are charged, by the way, with keeping our border safe. the acting director of customs border protection endorsed this bill and said it would provide the strongest set of tools that we've had in decades. the chief of the u.s. border patrol said on fox news, and i quote, this bill that would have added additional hundreds of border patrol agents to our rank and file, that would have given us more technology, would have given us more equipment infrastructure, of course i'm going to be supportive of that. and one of the senators that negotiated this bill -- a strong conservative, i might add -- republican senator james lankford from oklahoma, said that this would have stopped 800,000 entries in the past four

months if it had already been signed into law. the hypocrisy is stunning. senators and house members who went back to their home states and talked about how bad the southern border was and how we needed to act now have flip-flopped. these are politicians who claim to work bipartisanly, but they oppose bipartisan solutions. the same ones that have cried loudly for years that we need changes, policy changes on the border, but they're revealing in plain sight that it isn't about policy issues. it's about politics. and the disinformation campaign that's come along with this is rich. claims that 5,000 migrants would be allowed into this state, into this country every day is

patently false. and if they had read the bill, they would have known it. there's those that say the congressional action isn't needed. that also is false. we control the purse strings, we control the policy language. and only congress can fix our asylum laws. only congress can make sure we're giving the border patrol the resources that they need to secure the border. i wish this place worked, i really do. this is the greatest country in the world, not by accident, because our forefathers acted responsibly. and we didn't have campaign seasons that never end. that we actually could sit down and negotiate not as democrats and republicans, but as

americans, to do what's right for this country. if we don't start acting like adults in this place and start thinking and acting reasonably and listening to our constituents, not listening to one person but listen to the folks who sent you here. even when you disagree with them, you should be listening to them, to try to fix the problems, i fear for this country's future. and i don't say that lightly. there's plenty evidence out there that shows that china would love to replace us as the premier economy and the premier military in this world. that is not something that we should take lightly.

that is something that we should take very, very seriously. and when congress doesn't do their job, when congress doesn't even debate a bill to deal with a serious problem in this country, it does not speak well of us, and it only empowers our opponents out there, the countries that want our places in the world. i don't know what will transpire with this negotiated border agreement, but i do hope that we get another opportunity to vote on it, on the policy that was negotiated by lankford and sinema and murphy. they worked hard. at a bare minimum, they deserve -- they deserve, but more importantly the american people deserve to hear a debate

on this bill and find out not what facebook or twitter or what the intert says about this bill, but find out exactly what's in this bill. because i can tell you montanans are tired of d.c. political games, and, quite frankly, so am i. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

to proceed . if we don't reach time agreement, we will hold the next vote on the motion to proceed at approximately 7:00 p.m. tonight. i hope our republican colleagues can work with us to reach an agreement on amendments that we can move this process along. democrats are willing to

consider reasonable amendments on the floor as we have shown on many occasions the past three years. nevertheless, the senate will keep working on this bill until the job is done. >> supplemental appropriations. as of the senate would need to do his own work to meet the needs of national security. the president's decision over the past three years directly contributed to a web security challenges demanding the senate attention. an embarrassing retreat from afghanistan and credibility with allies to the halting response to recognize inflation and capabilities off the front lines in defense and a policy that

tried training deterrence. the senate can and will continue to urge the commander-in-chief to do the right thing but we have a responsibility of our own to provide for defense and standard in chief with the tools to exercise strength. that responsibility is in front of us right now and addressing national security challenges serious legislation starts with basic realities about how the world works america has global interest and level responsibilities to the extent the president elected them, the senate ignores them as nations peril. our partnerships are essential

to advance our interests. embolden, it is not dependent to me observable facts in history. denying them is a disservice to the american people and impossible to engage productivity on decisions about u.s. national security without

acknowledging them and colleagues have worked diligently on iran backed chair against israel and u.s. forces in an aggressive china and on. before the senate resolving this request. thanks to senate republicans commander-in-chief strategy to identify requirements and metrics for assistance to ukraine. $4 billion away from the budget support and security investments. inspector general rated betty and eaa last year further expanding unprecedented

disability into how u.s. assistance would be used in the legislation designates $9 billion above these requests including 2.4 billion for ongoing operations for iran backed terrorists in the middle east and republican efforts in this strict new oversight measures in the humanitarian assistance and u.s. taxpayer funds in the agency's current hatred in gaza's and participate in the slaughter of israel. the provisions in investments which is critical to our national defense, allies and partners are fighting our adversaries, degrading military

capacity in working to restore deterrence and franzen pacific are working to deter another one. together they are facing authoritarian aggression and our colleagues have heard me say this before, american assistance charity, and investment in u.s. interests. this is not a rhetorical device not referring to a vague line of effort in which is expected to see in this benefit. i mean quite literally spending tens of billions of dollars in america upgrading our capabilities creating american manufacturing jobs expanding defense industrial capacity to help us better compete with

advanced adversaries. to support this ukraine's defense, $19.85 billion we spent here in america punishing our own personnel. another 3.5 million will be spent again here in america to expand our industrial base capacity to produce long range weapons 15.4 billion spent one more time here in america on weapons to ukraine to degrade military strength and u.s. adversary. investments create this capacity that we the united states need for serious competition with our

adversaries. of course this doesn't account for funding allies and partners around the world american capabilities. including $120 billion and counting overall even accounting for assistance more than 75% of this legislation is found for investments right here in america and 60% goes to the defense industrial base and long-term strengths and prosperity here at home. this is rebuilding the arsenal of democracy and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries

that we are serious about exercising american strength. i can present this as frequently as necessary as i have been doing literally and capable of understanding support of ukraine money invested here in america, everyone of our colleagues is capable of understanding legislation and expanding production capacity and rocket motors, submarines and investments and readiness for long-term competition. competition of america cannot afford this. every single one of us knows what's at stake and time for every one of us to deal with it.

>> majority is recognized. >> i think the centers for his words on the floor supportive of assistance to ukraine and i think him for being consistent in the message. yesterday after months of delay, 17 republican senators joined in a bipartisan effort to advance critical security and humanitarian aid and i want to thank them for stepping up and urge them to continue moving forward on this final passage moving in the house of representatives. all the while beaches on the floor in the senate and other places vladimir putin is sitting back waiting for the united states to finally walk away from ukraine and they fight on his

blood he onslaught. putin is donald trump will be reelected and congress will discontinue aid to ukraine. meanwhile the message from the movement tucker carlson was interviewing the former communist agent hoping to further his cynical strategy, is there anyone who could remotely imagine many in the party of john mccain would be voting against aid to stop russian tierney in the will of former president trump was spoken favorably? this photograph captures the moment a few years ago -- wrong photograph.

thirty-seven years ago between east and west germany president reagan stood for freedom to tear down the wall. the second photograph is more personal to me. about ten years ago when senator john mccain and i were part of the delegation and colleagues from arizona, rhode island and wyoming we went to ukraine's square so all of those killed in the fight for freedom, i am asking the same question yesterday the bullish prime minister said ronald reagan who helped millions went back our freedom must be turning over in his grave. the polish people in ukraine and

the united states, they have long memories of tierney amino critical american resolve is overcoming tierney and we should never forget that. i'm proud to represent the city of chicago and there are many polish americans are, great people to think what they have done during this ukrainian war is an amazing story. they have literally embraced refugees from ukraine. one of the polish officials told me you won't find a refugee camp from ukraine and bring them into our homes. an amazing outpouring and when asked what is motivating you, we remember when no one would do that for us facing the same tierney in our own history, it made a difference. it's not just because of their love for neighbors in ukraine

but the realization if vladimir putin, the next target could easily be owned or the baltic nations and they know this fight is waged against putin and ukraine is there fight and we should realize the same. next week a bipartisan group and security conference, an annual compass in germany we bring together european nations and others to discuss topics of the day you can bet the number one topic will be ukraine. god forbid failed to pass supplemental. i don't know what i will say to our friends and allies who have stood by us in the ukrainian people for so long money

necessary to buy ammunition and equipment divide on? we will ask it here in a matter of hours. recently said if putin is estopped he will continue his work beyond ukraine, grave consequences and make no mistake putin watching, it's iran, china, north korea and many others so let's get this done, show the world we cannot divide and home and allies abroad. refusing to provide critical aid to ukraine, israel, gaza and taiwan and urgent national security needs until we pass legislation to secure the american border. this week we had the opportunity

to vote on a bipartisan bill to help us secure the border and national security funding. i have concerns about the language that i realized it was a bipartisan, negotiating for weeks to get the language to appeal to democrats and i want to thank senator murphy for her resolved as well. i have concerns about the proposals is that i was prepared to support it with chances and i'm happy to report part of the national border patrol council and union has four patrol agents. despite all the senate republicans want to offer amendments in the way to offer a minute to past a motion to proceed the bill and it came up

for support with enough public and support to pass the bill on the floor almost immediately after, senate republican, in opposition enough to even consider, why? donald trump told them not to. he was old. any attempt to make border patrol

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. we have an opportunity to come

together to cut taxes for american families in my state, the families of more than 500,000 children and to cut taxes for american manufacturers. the deal negotiated by finance chair wyden, a democrat, in the senate, and ways and means chair smith in the house, overwhelmed support. it passed the committee in the house 40-3. it passed on the house floor with 357 votes. when, mr. president, does that happen here? it's how congress is supposed to work. we talk with the people whom we serve. we hear their concerns and we act. families are dealing with costs that are far too high because corporations continue to raise prices to pay for executive bonuses and stock buybacks and higher profit margin. i often think of this because i here whether my wife and i are at the grocery store near our church in brecksville, when i'm out talking to people at a round

table or at an airport talking about high food prices, one of the biggest reasons when people go to the grocery store they realize they're paying for stock buybacks and executive bonuses. the american manufacturers have been telling us they can't compete with countries like china without more investment in research and development but it means the tax code isn't rewarding the kind of investment it should. i heard in ohio from people in east palestine -- i'm going for i believe the ninth time there last week -- worried -- this is the place that the community in ohio and the pennsylvania border in eastern ohio where the train, the norfolk southern train derailed causing all kinds of hardship for people. but people in east palestine are worried, they tell me, that they could be hit by a surprise tax bill for the payments they rightly received from norfolk southern after the derailment last year. it's unacceptable. people of east palestine have endured enough so we came

together to write a bipartisan consensus bill that does all of those things. at a time when washington seems pretty broken, we have an opportunity to come together and show the american people we can get things done. we can cut their taxes. we can support their businesses. we can help keep intellectual property in this country. we can help create jobs. we can help families. the expansion of the child tax read will help ohio working families keep up with rising costs, including all the extra expenses that come with raising kids. it has broad support. everyone from the nuns on the bus to national association of evangelical support, support expanding the child tax credit. i know the presiding officer, the senator -- junior senator from arizona and i have talked about how important the child tax credit is. it supports work. the nonpartisan scorekeepers at the joint committee on taxation confirmed that this bill won't reduce work. when i hear from ohio parents, the number one thing they say,

they use the child tax credit so they can work. also when we passed this child tax cut, child tax credit it's called but a tax cut for working families where 90% of children, two million, the families of two million children in my state benefited from it. we passed it three or four years ago and it expired, unfortunately. i got letters from families all the time saying, you know, now my daughter can play soccer and we can afford the school fees. now my son can be in a school play and afford fees. now we can maybe go to a movie once a month. all the kinds of things that families living on the edge or families not quite living on the edge contend with that gives them that. it's key for ohio manufacturers that invest in research and innovation. it's expensive. it's vital for keeping up with global competitors, these tax credits will allow ohio companies to compete. last month i did a news conference with two long-time

friends of mine. two former ohio republican congressmen, steve stivers and pat teabury both represented ohio districts. teabury is now president and ceo of the ohio business round table. they both talked about how crucial these tax cuts are for ohio businesses. their major priority for american companies as my republican colleagues in the senate have made clear to us all year. it's why chairman wyden and many of us work with republicans to write a bill that's a win-win for everybody. it's a true bipartisan process from the start. it includes ideas that have support from both parties. take the look-back provision, allowing parents to use the previous year's income to make sure they get the maximum possible tax cut. this is an idea that senator cassidy from louisiana and i worked on together during the pandemic. we got support from both parties. this will make this bill work

better. it will make this bill -- it will enable this bill to help children and families more. it's the same option the corporations have in the tax code. why not make it available to families because corporations can often do look-backs, look at the year before to calculate their taxes. the way chair wyden and smith negotiated this bill is how we should do this. we listen to the people we serve. i know chair wyden spoke with a number of republicans, members of the finance committee. he spoke with me often during this process as we worked on both the tax credit and child tax credit. i know that chair smith worked with members of both parties on his committee. that's why he passioned it out of his committee 40-3. imagine 40-3 on a tax bill in a very -- in a congress that's -- has difficulty getting consensus and getting things done. we made sure mechanics of both parties were in the room in these negotiations or were in the room in terms of having

discussions. we got something done that brought people together. it supports families. it supports businesses and includes priorities of both parties. it supports work, supports american innovation. it won't add to the deficit. it's paid for by cracking down on fraud. no reason not to pass this deal immediately. again, 357 votes in the house. overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee, then in the house. there's no reason to wait other than playing politics. we see it far too often here. we need to move. tax season is under way. families and businesses need these tax cuts now. why would we walk away from a bipartisan bill that we could pass today if members would put aside egos and politics and all that too often gets in the way. let's come together, mr. president, to cut taxes for working families and cut taxes for ohio manufacturers. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. president, i'll be brief. yesterday the senate cleared colonel passing national security supplemental. it was a good important first step. we know resume close closure on the motion to proceed. if we don't reach time agreement with the hold the next vote on the motion to proceed at approximately 7:00 p.m. tonight that i hope republican colleagues can work with us to reach an agreement on amendments so we can move this process along. democrats are willing to consider reasonable and fair a memo to the floor as we have shown the past three years. nevertheless the senate will keep working on this bill.

i said the senate would need to do his own work to meet the needs of national security. the decisions over the past three years correctly contributed to the web series security challenges in the senate's attention. russian escalation and capable dissolve the front lines of ukraine's defense and in the rain policy trading deterrence. the senate can and will continue to urge the commander-in-chief to do the right thing but we also have a responsibility of

our own to provide common defense with the tools to exercise american strength. that responsibility is in front of us right now and addressing national security challenges serious legislation starts with recognizing basic realities about how the world works first america has global interest in global responsibilities to the extent the president has elected them, the senate ignores them as a nations peril. second, partnerships are essential to advancing our interest and lower the cost and reduce risk to america and facilitate what drives our economy. these partnerships lie on

american leadership in american credibility. finally, a growing list of adversaries wish us harm. growing evidence there working together and there's no doubt they are emboldened by american weakness. plainly observable facts. denying them does a disservice to the american people and impossible to engage productivity on decisions about u.s. national security without acknowledging them our colleagues are working diligently against the west, iran back to tear it u.s. forces

and an aggressive china had on. before the senate significant shortcomings of the first request. for example republicans are required to submit a strategy that identifies objectives and requirements and metrics from our assistant to ukraine. direct budget support in kyiv and security investments. it fully funds inspector general created by the nda last year for the expanding unprecedented visibility and this assistance being used. this designates $9 billion above this request for u.s. defense needs for ongoing operations

against iran backed terrorists in the middle east and republican efforts impose new oversight measures on humanitarian assistance and not a single penny taxpayer funds goes to the agency to deploy to stoke hatred and gaza and participate in the slaughter. allies and partners in israel are for adversaries. our friends in the pacific are working to deter another one. together they are facing raw and authoritarian aggression and our

colleagues heard us say this, it is an investment in cold hard u.s. interest in us not a rhetorical device, not referring to a fake line of efforts in which they expect to receive a trickle-down. quite literally spending tens of billions of dollars in america upgrading our capabilities and manufacturing jobs expanding defense industrial capacity to help us better compete with advanced adversaries. to support ukraine's defense nine-point eight billing will be

spent right here in america replenishing our own arsenal. another 3.5 billion will be spent again here in america to expand our industrial base capacity for air defense and weapons and 15.4 billion here in america on weapons to ukraine to continue degrading military strength in a major u.s. adversary. in this capacity week the united states for serious competition with our adversaries. this doesn't even account for funding allies and partners around the world are investing in american capabilities so including $120 billion and counting nato allies overall

even accounting for direct assistance simply allies like israel more than 75% of the legislation is gone for investments right here in america and 60% goes to the defense industrial base where increasing capacity is direct investment long-term strength and prosperity at home. rebuilding arsenal of democracy demonstrating to our allies and adversaries that we are serious about exercising american strength. i can present these facts as frequently as necessary and what i have been doing quite literally, every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding assistance

appropriated in ukraine is money invested here in america and every one of our colleagues are capable of understanding the legislation and expanding capacity rocket motors to submarines or investments in readiness and long-term competition with china. but america cannot afford. every single one of us knows what's at stake and time for everyone of us to deal with it. >> majority is recognized. >> i think the senators from kentucky for horse on the floor supportive of and the need after

months of delay, looking at this is an effort security humanitarian aid. i want to thank them for stepping up and urged them to continue in final passage speeches here on the senate and other places vladimir putin has been waiting for the united states to walk away from ukrainians as they fight to repel the onslaught. in this will continue aid to ukraine. in modern movement in moscow

interviewing the kgb agent hoping to further the strategy. is there anyone here who could have imagined the party of ronald reagan and john mccain would be actively voting against aid to stop russian tierney and bend to the will of a former president trump who has spoken favorably? this photograph captures a moment a few years ago -- wrong photograph. thirty-seven years ago between east and west germany were president reagan stood for freedom and told gorbachev to turn on the wall. the second photograph is more

personal to me. ten years ago when senator john mccain and i were going colleagues from arizona, north dakota, rhode island and wyoming we went to ukraine's square in kyiv to all those killed in the fight for freedom and asking the same question from yesterday, he spent ronald reagan who helped millions freedom of independent turning over in his grave what's happening now in washington. polish people were staunch allies of the saints in the united states and they have memories of tierney and the critical american resolve is overcoming tierney and we should not forget.

how to represent the city of chicago and they are great people. what they have done during this war is an amazing story. they have embraced refugees is one of the polish officials told me senator, you will find a refugee camp in poland. it's an amazing outpouring and when i asked them what is motivating you? no one would do it for us when we face the same tierney. it's not just because of their love for neighbors and ukraine but the realization vladimir putin congress ukraine, the next target could easily be poland and they know fight wage against

putin and ukraine is there fight and we should realize the same. next week a bipartisan group of us are attending security conference, an annual conference in germany we bring together european nations and others to discuss pay. you can bet the number one topic will be ukraine god forbid failed to pass the supplemental. i don't know what i will say to friends and allies in nato in europe stood by us in the ukrainian people for so long here in the u.s. senate. the first question, fully approved money necessary to buy ammunition and equipment for ukrainians to fight on? here. secretary-general recently said

he will continue were beyond ukraine with grave consequences but make no mistake savoring this, as iran, china, north korea and others. but children they cannot biden weakness or with allies abroad. for most my republican colleagues refused to provide critical aid to ukraine and gaza and taiwan address urgent national security and military needs until we would consider past legislation to secure the american border. this week there's an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill to help us secure the border and provide essential national security money. i have concerns about the language but i realize it was a bipartisan compromise and

republicans negotiating literally for weeks to appeal for both democrats and turns about the proposals, i was prepared to support and am happy to support national border patrol council and agent. despite all this, senate republicans offer amendments the way is to pass the motion to proceed to the panel and for support we didn't have enough republican support. almost immediately after the bill was released, senate report against, in opposition when the bill came to the floor to consider, why?

why? donald trump told him not to. security changes in the house so he can use the campaign. he said blame it on me if it fails. we will. trump is apparently fearful of a bipartisan effort and it would undermine his campaign. it could not have come at a worse time facing the worst refugee crisis in the administration. immigration system not up to the challenge and as a result, there stuck in the process and backlogs for years. most people don't know this i want to make it for the record, 36000 migrants have common from the city of chicago and their assent under false pretenses and they were waiting in a result

the case the governor of texas didn't care didn't care about the plight. 36000 trying to find shelter in some slept in churches in is an amazing job as well as many others tried to take care and it's been a real hardship. 36000 people. mr. president, there's one thing most people don't realize, the past year end a half weeks observed in chicago 30,000into

the area saying publicly promote

we need more resources at the border to stop people arriving and share the belief we need more of the border and they are bringing narcotics dangerous to america. 30 billion at least in technology and resources to stop the drugs. jeanette claims in a work permit quickly and it is businesses across the nation. i left out dreamers, i was prepared in the support.

this is an effort in this country and it became part of america and a chance to prove themselves citizenship in this time forward. this requires compromise and campaign of the border and speeches at the floor and it took only one man to destroy this bipartisan agreement, donald trump. disappointed elected. one man doing this job.

stand behind people in ukraine and reflect the cannot imagine how they can explain to the world walking away from this panel and they are conditions beyond and innocent people will suffer. a vote in senate today, i yield the floor. >> i don't need to tell the people of this body but the public view they say is not very good. they are there for good reason because oftentimes people will seek politics all the time. they see bodies and individuals

of the parties and what we saw earlier this week confirmed this. we have bills that came out to address border security particularly on the southern border. it is just a national security issue. when i go home to montana, i hear it from everybody. families, business owners, police to mayors, you name it.

i don't think montana is different from other states about this is a big issue. people understand southern border is broken and they want us, the folks who serve in washington d.c. representatives to the government to do something about it. over the last many years, multiple administrations we've seen people go to the border and talk about how things are really bad number and undocumented folks coming across the border in record numbers. it needs to be fixed. unfortunately shouldn't be pressure releases and e-mails

and newsletters and interviews, this should be about getting something done to fix the problem. what transpired about four months ago is we had a bill on the floor funding for ukraine. there is some in this body that said this bill is going nowhere until we get something that addresses the problems of the southern border are standing right over there in the senator said we get seven border republican. he was wrong. the truth is united states it seven border protection and united states says in the help

of democracy making sure their successful taking over ukraine and ultimately the rest of europe but nonetheless three people went out and this is the way things are done around here, bipartisan seven border and the two people republicans and democrats, however he wanted say it, the home and appropriations the other was a member who was an independent that lives in a state that borders the southern border of arizona. so these folks went down and they worked and worked and

worked on negotiations and it's never easy. nobody gets think they want, there is compromise, negotiations and you thread the needle and come up with the bill that secures the southern border and they would say they would not have written of themselves but through the negotiating process they came up with the bill. they rolled out last sunday night. some 300 plus. the interesting thing was for the bill was rolled out, some in his body said i oppose it before they even had a chance to look at it they said they oppose it because they were told to oppose it.

susan states to come here, i would hope we all have a mind and can think and i hope we can all discern fact from fiction but when somebody says you just vote against it after you heard what a big issue this is and you considered it to happen if we do nothing versus doing something yet for political purposes it's bad policy but if a person says they will fix it. it is unbelievable to me, i have seen a lot of hypocrisy from

unbelievable to me the hypocrisy in the law. as a condition of national security and folks in this body turned their backs on fixing the problem because they want to keep it a political issue which is exactly why people look at washington d.c. and say they don't represent us. there into themselves, they just want everything for themselves. what does this compromise bill do? $20 billion in security for manpower, technology and attacked the fentanyl crisis and

includes fentanyl which puts serious harm and the precursor. it changes the asylum laws, it raises the bar exponentially. folks on the border illegally from getting the system it requires the president to shut down the border and the can't handle the people. take my word for it, national border patrol, 18000 border patrol agent endorsed this bill will they are keeping our border safe.

the strongest set of tools we had decades. that would border patrol agents rank-and-file and more technology and more equipment infrastructure, of course are going to be supportive of that. one of the senators that negotiated this bill conservative, i might add. james lankford from oklahoma said it would swap 800 entries that have already been signed into law. hypocrisy is done. senators and house members for

home states talking about how bad the southern border was and how we needed to act no have flip-flopped. these are politicians who claim bipartisan leak but they oppose bipartisan issues. policy changes on the border, what they reveal in plain sight it's about politics. going along with this, they are rich. 5000 migrants allowed into this country every day, if they didn't read the bill, they would know if they read it. action is needed.

only congress can fix asylum laws and only congress can make sure we are giving the resources they need to secure the border. i wish this place worked, i really do. this is the greatest country in the world not by accident. our forefathers acted responsibly and we didn't have campaign seasons that never and. we sit down and negotiate not us democrats and republicans but as for mom americans. do what is right for this country.

if we don't start acting like adults in this place, start digging and acting reasonably and listening to constituents but listen to the folks who sent you here even when you disagree, you should listen to them to try to fix the problems, i fear of this country's future and i don't say that lightly. there's plenty of evidence that shows china would love to replace the economy in this world. that's a something we should take lightly. that something we should take very seriously. when congress doesn't do the job, when congress doesn't even debate a bill to deal with the

serious problem in this country, it does not beat well for us. it only empowers. the countries that want to replace, i don't know what will transpire with this border agreement but i do hope we get another opportunity to vote on it on the policy negotiated by langford and cinema and murphy. now with facebook or twitter or what the internet says about the bill but find out exactly what is in the bill.

montanans are tired of political games and frankly so am i. so am i.

welcome back, we are joined by philip, a law professor at columbia university law school distinguished lecture at the university of texas and all since law school. welcome to the program. >> it's nice to be here. in house republicans failed to impeach the cabinet secretary they have said they try again as

early as next week. what is the constitutional standard for impeaching a cabinet secretary and how is it different or is it different for impeaching a president? the mark i think it is different, legal status, high crimes and misdemeanors the catch includes not only the president and vice president and cabinet but also judges and there is a different standard because it has to do with their particular roads and government so you could say cabinet officers more to do with treason, bribery, he or she has less opportunity to commit truly high crimes and misdemeanors

because there is not the scope of president. >> the two articles of impeachment against secretary mayorkas the refusal to comply with the law and the public trust. you see that as an impeachable offense? >> many people write about constitutional law. impeachment has changed his they designed it. it's mostly just in the last few decades. mayorkas far extreme on the. it is disheartening because we moved further and further away from legal that us. >> let's talk about history, the

last impeachment of a cabinet secretary during the current administration. only about in 1876. when you compare these episodes, what can we take from that chapter of u.s. history i can maybe inform this one? >> very substantial bribes over several years and resigned and the legal question was whether or not you could impeach them and resign and also was acquitted on that basis, i think he had in fact taken bribes.

>> staying with history for a little bit, one of the founding fathers considered adding the word administration to list of impeachable offenses. >> i keep hearing people say founders rejected the administration. the act is earl mason put forward and mr. madison raised the concern that is equivalent to a ten year part of the senate. governor morris withdrew. there is no boat or withdrew. it was not there at the time, other high crimes and misdemeanors. okay. what does that? i wasn't there. you go by and look, there are

debates what it meant but one thing is when there's common law but the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors that included but not limited to the administration. this debate worthy of academic debate but the fact is, it is up to us, there are no elements in the constitution, no specific requirement therapy abolishing statute, no weight in the constitution. it's for us to determine and when the secretary violates his duty to the constitution and violates his oath to defense in the united states and secure the homeland, it is incumbent upon body to call out and reject that secretary and that's dietary mayorkas. >> what you make of that next. >> take a minute to unpack that,

he seems to think high crimes and misdemeanors are one half of the house and two thirds of the senate taken, that is lawless. history is not quite portrayed as the relevant. treason is a narrow concept it does not what treason means to us in ordinary competitions. it can only occur during wartime for the purposes of prostitution. it is difficult to apply, you never know where action was taken because a contributor saves money to campaign inputs forward a particular position because they take that position

and they might have anyway. that's why they give us money in the first place. george mason said treason is two types, too hard to prove, we need something else suggested the of administration. james madison objected saying it would convert our system to supremacy. a system where prime minister can be removed by a vote of confidence and he accepted that and not correct to say it was locked up in the air but acknowledged that and withdrew. treason and bribery, a phrase they chose is not a blank slate.

the important part of the phrases other. treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, those crimes that are part of this, it doesn't require statutory violation but it must have something in common with treason and bribery from a constitutional requirement and it goes to the heart of the security of the country. >> we will take your calls at the top of the hour 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can call by party republicans (202)748-8001. democrat 2,027,488,000 and independent to acute 7488002. shortly after january 6, he released an opinion in the washington post's impeachment

right punishment? >> i was writing in the second impeachment, i don't have any doubt donald trump organized this month-long conspiracy for the electoral account, that would be impeachable. because it occurred so late in his term, by the time they were again in the senate, he was there for another office. only civil offices are subject to this. in their zeal to punish president trump, is prosecutors like to dismantle that and said shouldn't be allowed to file with what is done.

this is a political standard. i must have heard a thousand times teacher is a political matter, not a legal matter. maybe it is becoming so. >> what you think should have happened after january 6? elect what should have happened was they should have been adopted and sent to the administration condemning what donald trump had done in labeling it in the electoral process and section three or visit person who has conducted in this interaction. it would have been available it

would have picked up a number in this fallback. >> i do enjoy the arguments and they are of excellence and they tend to focus on chaos. each state could disqualify a president and i think that is a wise practical common it would

be surprised if the supreme court upheld this conversation. >> let's take calls now, republican in new jersey. >> i just want to say a couple things for the rest of the month. my grandfather graduated from columbia, his name is on the hamilton wall and what is our country. phone january 6 was almost impeachable. what he did, who is testing electives put into the states when evan states changed it

unconstitutionally without legislation approval, donald trump was about to do that. he had nothing to do with that. said dad suite speech and it got out of hand but nobody talks, he didn't talk about what they did to president trump. the first week in office in the white house they tried to undermine him. perpetrated by the government, nobody went to jail for that, nobody was impeached, nobody went to jail. >> let's get a response. >> i'm not sure it is in the same way. ...

republican appointees as well as democratic. they will also trump appointees as well. it does not make them true. what the caller is referring to, i would be happy. what he has in mind spirit repeating these tragedies about how the election, the president really just gave a speech that leads the way. was not responsible for trying to stand at the capital. the events of january 6 were not part of a month-long campaign. many months before to try to give a safety net if he lost the election and all of those things are just ignored. >> professor, the constitutional right, challenging the results

of the electoral college, what do you say to that? >> that is absolutely right. >> eva. republican. good morning. >> good morning. i want to know who was the first president in the country that was ever impeached and for what. they say all those documents they had a legally are not a crime for him. what about all of this other stuff. they are investigating all the millions the bidens have raked in from around the world. he was only selling his name. maybe he was selling these boxes of documents. just because of your age and your mental capacity does not mean you should be impeached or in jail.

alden senile, joe biden is not above the law and impeachment has been made a crime simply by the democratic party. >> let's get an answer to that on the documents case. >> the first question was about the first impeachment. 1868. the second observations had to be with whether or not some elderly person like me decreasing capacity. a month-long investigation by a

trump appointed attorney for special counsel for the department of justice. just the headlines. i do not think, at least i have not read anything that some words the claims made by the caller that the materials that were left in bidens house were sold or bartered to fund powers. biden has been extremely forthcoming. staff for long interviews. i don't think he is above the law. i don't think he thinks he is

above the law. at that conclusion, i agree with the caller is that true? >> i just have not read the reports. i am not inclined to deal with conclusion about it. many factors of our culpability go into the prosecution. an ethical standard for the department of justice. i have two questions. first with clarence thomas sitting on cases on the nrc

direction. with regard to that question if you are to be recused a4 for split on the court, what would be the effect of it? also with regard to that, now a motion filed in the supreme court that have him recused with supporting factual documentation which would give sonya sotomayor the opportunity to publish a written opinion. the court yesterday focused on a national rule. at the court just a clearing in this opinion that there is now a national rule that donald trump has been disqualified. in session this weekend, including

super bowl sunday which is fine by me, to deal with this bill that now, as everyone knows, about ukraine, funding for ukraine. and its war effort, funding for israel, funding for taiwan and some other matters. i'll dispense with the israel and taiwan funding because that's a pretty shat forward one that i think -- straightforward one that i think has strong support. i'm for t. i'm also for helping ukraine against russia. i do believe we have a national interest in helping ukraine against russia. i would just summarize it this way. if you look at china, which most people would agree is the -- the u.s.' biggest adversary at this point for global influence. the chinese are hoping one of two things is going to happen. the first is they're hoping we're going to get stuck in ukraine along with what's happening in the middle east and be drained by it and won't be able to focus on the indo pacific. if we do get -- if we do become disengaged wlashgs their hope is they'll go around telling

people, see, we told you america is unreliable, power in decline. so i believe our goal when it comes to ukraine is to be helpful to ukraine in a way that doesn't drain us, in a way that doesn't harm our alliances around the world. i have my own personal views on n. i shared it in the past. i think -- we've had further confirmation over the last 24 hours, that what i think ukraine eventually winds up, i don't believe the russians can ever achieve their initial objectives, no matter what happens which is to take all of ukraine and -- all the way to kyiv. i also think it's going to be very difficult for a country the size of ukraine no matter how much help it gets to cleatly -- completely destroy the russian federation. but i do believe that at some point both of these countries are going to try to figure out a way out. the question is which one of the two is going to have the most leverage and best deal possible and will ukraine be able to emerge from this as a democracy,

as a nation that is not under the thumb of vladimir putin and other belarus -- another belarus as an example. i think we have a national interest. not a limited national interest. it doesn't -- there is an interest. i just wanted to say that at the outset. but i would say that -- and i say that because obviously i'm informed by my work on the intelligence committee, the foreign relations committee, my interest in foreign policy because i think our job here, the term government, we got in a plot of things that are none of our business but foreign policy and national security is a key part of the federal government and what we're supposed to be doing here. and i do believe in the short and long term. there are things there i don't think i need to convince snib about israel and taiwan that involve the national security of the united states and what the world is going to look like in five, ten, 15 years. that said, i would mraj, not that i imagine actually, i know, that will are -- that there are people, if you walked in in many

places in this country right now and you explained to them what would happen, they would be puzzled. no matter how they may feel about ukraine, i tlifrpg for most americans it's not a priority, not because they like putin or russia but we have a lot of problems that people are dealing with in their everyday life. i think what most people would say, okay, but if we're going to do that for ukraine, if we're going to help ukraine deal with their invasion, shouldn't we first or at least at the same time deal with our invasion, with what's happening to our country? so you guys are going to meet all weekend. you're going to fight, call each other names. you're going to drag this thing out. you're going to have this big thing that we never do. we never stay here on sundays. it's fine with me but we never do all of this but when we do tshgs it's always for -- do it, it's always for somebody else. but something that's important to us, something to do with america, with our country, it never happens. how in essence how can you be helping ukraine with their invasion but not be helping america with its invasion? and it is an invasion, what's

happening in our southern border. these are very conservative numbers but they're incredibly accurate, come from public and nonpublic information, not classified, products that have been produced from the house committee, for example. let's say from january 20, 2021, okay, 3.3 million people have entered the united states illegally and been released into the country. of those 3.3 million people that have entered the country illegally, 99.7% of them are still here. they have not been deported or removed. and of the 3.3 million that have been released into this country, over 617,000 of them -- these are old numbers from last month -- of the 3.3 million that entered the country illegally and were released, 617,000 of them either have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. so we have at least 600,000 convicted criminals, you ises

expecteded -- suspected criminals, entered the country illegally, free to roam the country now. so people ask how did this happen? because it's never been zero. let's be clear. it's never been zero. never been zero illegal people coming into america. but how did this happen? well, let's first start with our law. people talk about immigration around here, they pretend, well, immigration is completely unrepping lated. we need new laws to fix it because they're all messed up and we don't regulate. immigration laws in america can be summarized. it's a complex area of law but at its core quite simply. here what immigration law in america is. it says this. these are the people allowed to be in the united states of america. and if someone who is not allowed to be in the united states of america enters illegally, you are to detain them through removal. meaning you are to detain them, immigration detention, until their case is either resolved or they're removed from the country. that is the law of the united states. and that's been the law of the

united states for quite some time. now, with that detention requirement that you hold them until they're removed, we've always had exceptions. narrow exceptions. for example, the dally lammi shows up at the border of the united states and says i'm here because the chinese are trying to kill me, exception, right? there have always been exceptions. these are supposed to be narrow exceptions and supposed to apply to individual case by case. humanitarian, things of this nature. but for the first time in american history, the current president of the united states decided to make the exception the rule. the rule. it became the rule that if you arrived here, we would not detain. except -- the exception became those we were detaining. i just gave you the numbers of the people who were released. so the exceptions ate up the rule. and that's how this happens. why it happens is not hard to

understand. i assure you, guys, listen, i live in an immigrant community. when it comes to immigration, i've been in the game for ten years. making these things, you know, looking at these things that are longer. i live it. ic i life it. my -- my entire family are immigrants. my wife's entire family are immigrants. all fl my neighbors are immigrants. i can't drive two blocks and go anywhere -- i live in miami, florida, surrounded by immigrants from all over the hemisphere and world. i didn't read it in a magazine, i didn't see a documentary or have a briefing. i talk to people who show me. they've shown me. in is the cashout payment i sent to some guy to bring my sister and her husband. here's the venmo i sent to some guy to help my family get from cuba to nicaragua to the united states. they don't know about the exceptions. here's what they know. they know that they know people

that have come here, turned themselves in, said i'm here, and they were released. they know people that did it. and those people tell other people. and the traffickers advertise it. and so what happens is when people figure out and they figure it out pretty quickly, human beings are incentive-based creatures, all of us are. that's why we pass laws to punish crime and raise taxes on cigarettes because we want people to smoke less. we're incentive-based creatures and when people know you can make it inside of the united states and turn yourself in, your chances of being released are 85%, 90%. more people are going to come. the numbers don't lie. i don't have it with me. i tried to blow it up but couldn't print it on time. but there's a graph that shows -- looks like one of those things, echo card grams but this goes -- echocardio grams but goes straight up.

january 2021, why did it spike in if you are a he a single adult, the biggest driver that really drove things, if you're a single adult and come into america illegally, and turn you are is he -- yourself in, we will interview you -- maybe not view you -- and the wait you solve it is to reverse it. the law didn't change a much the immigration law today looks the same as 2019. no immigration law has change add. what changed is this policy by executive order. remember, we passed laws that have to be executed. look what's happening with crime. it is illegal in every jurisdiction to shoplift but the places where you see a spike is the places where the prosecutors have said we're not going to

prosecute those cases. if you tell people it's illegal but we're not going to prosecute it you're going to get it. so how do you solve this? you solve it the same way you created it. by reversing it. a lot of us said, look, if we're going to do all of this for ukraine and this is something you really want, it's important, can't we also so that we look at least half-sane to the people in this country that can't understand how we could spend all this time and energy not helping ourselves before we help other countries, can we at least deal with the border? so they said, okay. society we're going to do something on -- so we're going to do something on the border. and they spent three, four -- i don't know, eight weeks, whatever, negotiating a deal. then they produced it. i didn't have anything to do with that deal. i'm not condemning the people that did it. i've done immigration

negotiations in the past. it is difficult. this is even more difficult because it is in midst of a mass migration crisis. but they equity negotiated a deal. i didn't know what was in it until sunday. and i read it. i read it twice actually, went through it with the knowledge base that i have. they negotiated a deal that most off us for the most part, to be fair, had nothing to do with negotiating. and i realized pretty quickly, this is not going to reverse. i know you can call it whatever you want. call it border security. you could label it anything you want. but this is not going to solve our problem. and immediately, oh, the republicans are a bunch -- a bunch of lies. these republicans they wanted a border deal. we gave him a border deal. now they want to tank the whole thing. i think that was the president. we gave them the exact deal they asked for and they changed their minds. you didn't give me the exact deal i asked for.

i never even asked for a bill. i'm not answer some of the language. you want to change the standard on asylum? long overdue but that alone is not going to stop the immigration crisis. that's what i asked for. i didn't negotiate it. i didn't even know what was in it until sunday. and so the solution that i want to see and did want to see and continue to want to see, the solution that we could actually go back to people and say, guys, we did something real on the border. yes, we're going to help ukraine, but we actually did something real that's also going to happen with our invasion. that was not this bill, despite whatever people may say about it. we rejected the toughest border deal imaginable is the other thing that people say. you know, like if somehow they figured out -- they sprinkled holy water upon a vampire. i could spell out a bunch of problems with this bill. i am not going to spend time going through every detail.

this emergency thing they brag about, emergency power to shut down the border. they don't tell you it is limited to a certain number of days and the president can success, as amended, it at any time. -- can suspend it at any time. by the way you even in the emergency, you still have to process 1,4s 00 people a day, illegal immigrants a day. even in the midst of an emergency. but let me focus on what i think is -- what what i i believe to be the most blatant trap put in place in this bill. it is one that people don't necessarily spot right away if you don't understand immigration law and how it has been applied over the last decade. so there is in this thing in the bill -- one of the thing that people use about immigration is asylum. it takes too long. it takes 8-10 years. it's true. and it's one of the incentives, by the way, because people know if you release me pending a hearing, ten years from now, who you won't know where i am, much

less show up at a hearing. so they come back and say, oh, we're prepared to solve that. how do they solve it? well, they create what i call the asylum corps. they're going to go out and hire thousands of department of homeland security anticipatings -- bureaucrats -- agents, bureaucrats, not judges, to process these claims, potentially right at the border, right? so right at the border these agents will be able to interact with an illegal immigrant, interview them. and they will have the power, they will have the power right there at the border to do three things. the first is they could say, no you you don't qualify. you're out of here. that's not been the history of what's happening now. let me just tell you from what i know, most of the people that sign up for these jobs do not sign up to kick people up. they sign up to help people get in.

but that's the asylum corps. that's the first power. the other two things are the likeliest ones. the first is we think you might have a claim. we're going to release you pending a hearing before a judge and you get an immediate work permit. right now you got to wait six months for a work permit even if you're released. an immediate work permit. you want to talk about a migration magnet? when people think i have an excellent chance of getting an immediate work permit, that's a migration magnet. but here's the third thing. they can give you asylum right there and then. not a judge, a member of this new asylum corps can literally give you asylum right there and then. let me be fair. the law says they can do it under the convention against torture. which is an international treaties. what is that? well, met me tell you how that's been applied. how it's been applied is that

the convention against torture isn't just like we're going to send you back somewhere where they're going to washington you. the -- where they're going to waterboard you. it has been applied and it means that we cannot remove people from this cannes -- from this country if we're going to send them back to a place where they might be kidnapped or where they might be assaulted, not just by the government but by nongovernment criminal gangs. so basically if you come from a country where gangs kidnap people, consider gangs kill people -- where gangs kill people or extort people or assault people, if you come from a country where that happens, we cannot send you back there under the convention of torture. that's like 100 countries on earth. that's like almost every country represented in the number of people that arrive at the border. so basically what you will have is an asylum with the power to grant people asylum right at the

border and let me tell you the difference between the asylum corps and an immigration judge. if a judge makes that decision, it can still be reversed. these are irreversible decisions. asylum is basically a green card. you are now five years away from being a u.s. citizen. that number is not going to be zero. if that law and that provision had been in place today, some of these 3.3 million people would have already been a year or two into their five-year wait to become citizens and voters of the united states of america. that's in that bill. and that's what it means when you read past the language and the shalls and the this and that and all that, that's what that language means. and you want me to vote for a bill so that in a year or two from now when news reports come out that the asylum corps has granted asylum and a five-year path to citizen to 500,000

people, i'm -- observation -- what am i supposed to -- everybody is like, oh, i didn't know that was in the law. that's there. there are other things. the point is, this is a trap. it was put in there. that was actually incentivize immigration. knowing what it is that incentivizes people to come. the other lie is, well, without a law, we can't do anything about the border. i already explained how we got here. we stopped detaining everybody. a few years ago it was, again, let's go back and be clear. the children that were being detained, before we turned them over to some guy that claimed to be his uncle, we had to make sure he wasn't jeffrey dahmer. in the meantime, you have to put them somewhere. but that was inhumane. now the detention of anybody is

inhumane. you've got people out there saying we shouldn't put ankle bringslets on anybody that's released. but the incentive that drove the immigration is we stopped detaining single adult and the word got out pretty fast. and the the traffickers, this is a business for them. they traffic people, they move people. they move drugs and contraband and people. and they knew this and they sell it, they advertise it. i wish i would have brought some of the pamphlets that they hand out or pictures of some of the things they put up on social media advertising this service. you don't need a law to fix that because the law hasn't changed. what you need is to reverse the executive orders, the decisions of the administration and the president can do that. in fact, i heard yesterday -- i think it was nbc news reported the president is now considering executive actions on the border. so at least they've acknowledged that they have that power.

a reporter asked me well you guys are always against executive actions. well, the executive actions i think they knead to take is to reverse the executive actions that they've taken that have created this crisis. there are other things. he can do the return to mexico. the safe third country one is an interesting one. i was involved in that when it was put in place. initially a lot of people said, why would these countries agree to that? let me tell you why honduras would agree to it, why el salvador agreed to it. because those are transit countries and if you come through that country, once you step foot in that country, you are automatically disqualified from getting asylum in the united states. i have nothing against these countries, but i promise you that the migrants that are going through el salvador, honduras and guatemala were going through. they didn't go to honduras, guatemala, or el salvador to stay there. they went there because it was on the way to where they were

trying to go. the minute migrants realize, if you go to honduras, i automatically can't get into the united states, they stop going to honduras or they stop going to el salvador. the countries figured it out. i bet we can get many more countries to sign up to something like that because they are bearing the brunt of being in the middle of the migration corridor. we could return to that as well. and, yes, we could build barriers. i remember after the events -- the horrible events of january 6 here in the capitol, the first thing that went up around in entire building was a fence with barbed wire and the national guard. the first thing they did to protect the capitol and themselves was put up -- deputize national guard from all over america and put up a bunch of fences all around the capitol. it went up like that. somehow when our country is being invaded and you put up a fence and you send the national guard, this administration will

go to the supreme court and try to stop you. so they'll do it to protect themselves, but they won't do it to protect america. my friends, the truth is biden doesn't want to stop the border crisis. the reason why is politics. i know his -- i know his memory is probably not the best, but i remember that he spent three years repeatedly saying -- not just him all the deputies, people in this chamber, all these, you know, know-it-alls on television, there is no crisis at the border. there's not a crisis. it is being ex--age lated -- exaggerated by a bunch of xenophobes and racists. it wasn't a crisis until it became a crisis in new york and chicago and all these major cities around the country who now suddenly -- you know when it was happening to texas, to the border in arizona, as if somehow

all the people were going to stay in eagle pass, texas, but once it started impacting them, now it became a problem, too. once you had to start closing schools because you needed to make it a migrant shelter, now it was a crisis. now when you got a gang of pickpocketers running through new york assaulting police officers, now it is a crisis. now when the residents of your city are screaming at you why are you spending this money when we have a homeless problem? now you have a crisis. voters were saying it too. i imagine, i'm certain that the people involved in the biden reelection effort came to him and said, sir, we need to have a plan. and the plan need to be something that at least looks like we're trying to stop it. but doesn't upset that element of our base who actually believes that anyone who comes here should be allowed to come in. that element exists.

that element exists. there are people in american politics and in american political discourse who believe that if you make it across the border, virtually anyone who comes here, unless you know, like the worst possible human, if you make it across the border you should be allowed to stay even if you came illegally. they had to come up with a plan. what was the plan? i called this out in december. the plan is let's do a border deal. let's call it a border deal. but let's make sure it doesn't stop migration because we don't want to upset our base, but let's also make sure it's bipartisan. let's get some republicans to sign on to it and then get it passed through the senate. then when the house kills it, we can say joe biden tried to fix the border bau these -- but these neanderthals maga house members killed it.

this is not something i'm psycheically coming up with. there is an article in "politico" in which an unnamed source in the biden camp was saying this is perfect. if we pass it we can say be patient. give it time to work. if it doesn't pass, he can blame the republicans and say they own it. those talking points were already being said including by some of my colleagues here on some sunday shows, they were saying that before the deal was already out there. that was the plan. but he'll never fix it. one, because there are people in the base that don't want it to be fixed. they believe, there are people in american politics, as i said already, that think anyone who comes here should be allowed to come and stay. there are others frankly who see a bunch of voters. they see a bunch of future voters. you know what? let's find a way to get people asylum. asylum is perfect.

it puts them on the path to citizenship and four to six years from now we'll have new voters and they'll vote for us and they'll remember we're the ones that let them in. that's another element. but i want to go back to the one about the elements of their base that believe in open borders, whether they admit it or not. some of them actually do admit it. there are actually people that have told me to my face, people should be allowed to live in any country that they want. which i suppose in a free society you can have a right to any opinion you want. i assure you it's not a majority opinion in america. in fact, i assure you it's not a majority opinion in any country. but somehow they think it should be our position. and if you don't think that the elements of a base have influence over our politics, i submit to you what's happening right now with israel policy. we've already seen, i would

imagine a small minority, but nonetheless a minority of radical anti-semitic prohamas activists who are saying they are threatening to vote against joe biden. they said it. we will vote. do not count on our vote. your name is genocide joe, they call him. they disrupt his speeches. he tried to give a speech the other day, i think there was like 40 interruptions. screaming at us, you need to do this, you need to do that, all the stuff that's out there. so you have a problem. we have an element of our base in some states that say they're not going to vote for you because you're helping israel too much. and that's where you see the leak. the first leak that came out is the president hung up on netanyahu. then you see another leak a couple of weeks ago. we're going to have a two-state

solution. never mind the fact that the two most prominent palestinian groups, sadly, in the region are groups, one of them is going to wind up the government of that second state. and these are groups that do things like give cash rewards for killing jews. the more jews you kill, the more money your family gets if you're a marytr. pay to slay. it's real. groups that, for example, in the schools, when their kids are 4, 5, 6, years of age, their textbooks teach them jews are subhuman and they're evil. groups that are not interested in a two-state solution. these groups are calling for a one-state solution. from the river to the sea, no jews. only them. so let's give them their own country. i would love for that to be possible but not as long as those people are around. that's the other thing they threw out there. yesterday we read that the white house has sent emmarcies --

emissaries, top aids from the white house to meet with these activists so they'll vote for him in november and stop being mean to joe biden over israel. you know who some of these people were? multiple, more than one of them were people that have openly, openly been supportive of both hamas and hezbollah. call them freedom fighters of the at least one of them is a guy who has publicly said on multiple occasions that the u.s. government is controlled by zionist money, by jewish money. that's who the white house went to meet with yesterday. then last night we're treated to a press conference by the president of the united states, and what i imagine was an unscripted moment -- maybe not -- he says israel's response to hamas has been over the top. which is ironic because i support israel funding but here we are today being asked to pass

a bill that has all this money for israel, which i support, so what are we funding? we're funding israel's over-the- top campaign against hamas? it doesn't make any sense except the politics. that's how politics influences all this. i would conclude by just taking us back to the original point, which is the reason why i voted already to move to proceed to this, i don't know how you go to people in everyday life, hardworking people, and you say to them, people who are upset because they feel our country's border is being overrun, and it is, and they say, how come we're not doing anything about that? something real, like why aren't we making that a priority? why don't we ever read that the senate is staying in through the weekend arguing and fighting and working on something real to stop the border? how come that never gets a priority? the growing number of americans

that always feel like when it comes to a major issue and major fight they're always second behind another country, another group, behind somebody else who have been for the better part of 20 years told we have to take care of others before we focus on your problems. let's send our jobs and our factories to other countries because it's good for the global economy. let's spend -- i know we have homeless veterans committing record amounts of suicides and these tragedies but let's spend more money housing migrants in this country illegally to believe with. people who watched the news last week, a roving gang of migrants from venezuela. it's interesting because for a year now the venezuelan community in south florida has been telling me to be careful because some of the people coming from venezuela now are clearly gang bangers. you have to prove that. i'm not saying it's zero percent, but they were right. they warned me a year ago.

now we're seeing it. and you saw it last week when five or seven of them assaulted a police officers, were arrested, were released within an hour without any bail, flipped the middle finger to america, and walked right out, back to the migrant shelter paid for by taxpayers. you saw it last sunday where an illegal migrant of palestinian descent went to nassau county, went to a guy's house, tore down flags, when the guy approached him he assaulted him and shouted we're going to kill the jews. those are two examples but i could give you more. people are watching and they're angry and saying why aren't you guys doing something about that? why aren't these people being

deported immediately? how about these people here on student visas? you're a visitor to the united states of america on a student visa, on a student visa or whatever visa, and you're in the street calling for intifada, but we can't deport you. they won't deport you. we know who you are. you're not here illegally. you're here on a visa. if you said all that stuff we probably wouldn't have given you the visa. but now that you're here, you get to keep the visa. deport those people. they won't. why aren't you fighting about that? most americans have nothing against ukraine. most americans want to help ukraine. but i don't think it's unreasonable for them to say what about us? what about our country? what about our invasion? what about our border? and i want to say this with as much respect as i can, there's nobody in the senate that can lecture me on immigration. not a political -- i've lived it my whole life. this is not immigration. 3.3 million people released into

the country, 5,000 to 10,000 people a day illegally arrive in the country, that's not immigration. immigration is a good thing. mass migration is a bad thing. that's what this is, this is a mass migration and it's not good for anyone. it's not even good for the migrants, many of whom are raped and killed along the way. it's good for the traffickers. it's good for the enemies of this country. but it's not good for the migrants. this is mass migration. and it reminds me, people say if you're against this and you want to be strict about immigration that's anti-immigration, which is silly, at least when they say it to me. but i remember, like, i'm not anti-rain. i think rain is a good thing. i think we need rain. i'm anti-flood. i'm not against the rain.

i'm against flooding. does being against flooding make you anti-rain? no. being against mass migration does not make you anti-immigration because mass migration is not immigration. beyond the issues of sovereignty and common sense and the costs involved, beyond all of that, do we really think that you can release 600,000 people with either criminal convictions or pending criminal charges into the country and nothing's going to happen? you think these people, you think you can release 600,000 people with criminal histories and they're all of a sudden all going to become entrepreneurs and start some tech company? no. the chances are that a lot of them are going to continue to be criminals. you're going to have a crime wave. it's already starting. and no part of this country will be immune from it.

and you think isis, and for that matter, every terrorist organization in the world, no matter what sewer they live in or cave they're hiding in, you don't think they're aware that the largest, most effective human smuggling operation in all of human history is operating right on the border of the united states? you don't think they're aware of it? because the guys that were involved in 9/11, those animals, savages, they actually came here on a visa pretending to be flight students. the next 9/11, god forbid, they don't have to pretend anything. all they have to say is i come from a country where people are kidnapped and where people are often victims of crime, and you must let me in. and for all we know, some of them may actually become citizens because they're going to get asylum. you don't think these terrorist groups are aware? i can't and i won't die vulg any

won't divulge information so let's use common sense. terrorist groups understand the largest human smuggling operation operates right at the border of the united states and we don't think anything is going to come as a result of it? something bad's going to happen. something bad, really bad is bound to happen. and when it does, remember this day. because when it does, when something really bad happens, when we are overrun by a horrible crime wave in multiple cities, i was a child, i didn't live in miami at the time. we moved away for a few years. the boat lift brought people from cuba it, took miami ten years to dig out of that bill clinton lost reelection because he agreed to take in people at a federal facility in arkansas and

they set it on fire. there were a lot of people who came into mario and there were sadists and lunatics as well. you take a lot of people from anywhere and you're going to have the good, bad, and the ugly. we have something just like this happening not once over a span of weeks, literally every month we have two mariels. and you think you're going to allow a flood of people into america and something bad is not going to happen? sadly it is. it's just a matter of time. when it toms behr does -- when it does, things that sound extreme are going to sound overduchlt you know what they're going -- overdue. you know what they're going to ask us? how could you have allowed this to happen? i end where i began. i know that if all do you is spend your time here and watch those networks and read these columnists and newspapers, you may lose this perspective. buff i promise -- but i promise

you, in the real world, on planet earth, in this country, among everyday people, most of them are asking themselves you want to help ukraine? we're for it. you want to help israel? of course, yes, we should help taiwan. but who's helping america? why isn't helping our country deal with this migrant crisis number one, before those other things? don't they tell you on an airplane, if the oxygen mask deploys, put on your mask, then put the one on your kid? what good are we -- how do you suppose, america, to anyone in the world, any country on this planet if we're falling apart inside? then who do we work for? we work for americans. i'm a united states citizen. a united states senator. i care about things going on in the world. no one's ever accused me of being an isolationist.

those things do matter to america. you have to start with the fundamentals. you have to be strong to be strong for your allies. we are being invaded. every single day, today, 8,000 to 10,000 people will enter the united states illegally and unl unlawfully. we don't know who most of them are. don't let them they will you -- tell you they do. you can buy a fake passport, in multiple countries in latin america you can buy them. it's an industry. so i'm telling you, we are going to have something bad happen and people are going to ask why didn't you guys fight over that? why didn't you stay over the weekend about that snshg -- weekend about that? why are we focused on invasion of another country, which is important, but not focused on the invasion of our own country? it can be solved. the president's executive orders

created it. and he can reverse it. but he won't. so here we are. i yield the floor. mr. young: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: madam president, as a senator for the state of indiana, i just can't let february pass without offering a tribute to one of our state's favorite sons, abraham lincoln. as we approach his birthday, we celebrate how lincoln's story is perhaps the ultimate example of

american opportunity. lincoln spent the formative days of his childhood in the hoosier wilderness and ultimately rose from the humblest of circumstances, a log cabin, all the way up to the white house. as president, he helped preserve our union and end slavery, setting a course so that all americans, regardless of race or circumstances, could follow his upwards path. lincoln challenged america to honor the promise in its declaration of independence that all men are created equal, and he reminds us still today that if we fail to do so, government by consent of the governed cannot long endure. i think all of united states here in the united states senate today can attest that these are difficult times.

we face all sorts of challenges, foreign and domestic, and therefore our politics are difficult. but i would argue, and i do so here today, that the politics we're facing today aren't nearly as difficult as those abraham lincoln faced. during a week like this, where passions run high, had numerous debates behind closed doors and on this floor, we should keep persp perspective, and we should avoid dramatic comparisons and take dire predictions with a grain of salt. but concern about the national discourse, which informs our political system, is indeed well-founded. dialogue between americans, so

essential to the maintenance of a democratic republic, has coarsened and reached the point that, at times, it scarcely resembles conversation. this form of estrangement leads to hurt feelings, separateness, civil dysfunction. and my fear, what brings me down to this floor, is not just to honor a great man, i fear that this portends much worse divisions moving forward. abraham lincoln knew this. he understood this dynamic. decades before the civil war, he identified a remedy, and in an address that upset the residents of springfield, illinois. you see, 19th century america

was awash with passionate reform movements, much like today in the great american tradition. many of their followers sought to cure societal ills with great zeal and commitment. one example was the temperance mov movement, sort of a dated term. but the temperance movement was a campaign against drinking, the demon rum, alcoholic beverages. on february 22, 1842, the 110th anniversary of george washington's birthday, abraham lincoln spoke to a gathering of reformers at springfield's second presbyterian church as part of a temperance festival. must have been a grand old-time. lincoln was 33 years old. i was a member of illinois's house of representatives.

as he later said, he was an old-line whig. this was a political party whose base, to borrow a modern term, whose base included members of social reform movements. but lincoln did not use this occasion to curry favor with his base. no, instead, abraham lincoln offered advice that is still relevant to us today. the invitation to speak came from springfield's chapter of the washingtonian temperance society. this organization was founded two years prior, in baltimore, by six friends, all recovering alcoholics. in a short period of time, the washingtonians started a revolution in treating addiction. the society's numbers quickly

swe swelled. just a few years after its founding, chapters spread across the country, into the frontier, and the washingtonian's success lincoln recognized a particular means of building coalitions and addressing intractable problems. and at its core was something especially relevant, i would argue, in our era of addition by subtr subtraction. as he put it, persuasion, pers persuasion, kind, unassuming pers persuasion. preve efforts to curb -- previous efforts to curb alcoholism as lincoln recounted were often self-righteous in their nature. perhaps that characterization sounds familiar to some, when we

reflect on the current discourse. self-righteous in their nature and impractical in their demands. lest i sound quaint, that rings a bit true to me. as we reflect on present-day washington and the debates we sometimes have on this floor. the washingtonians' approach and expectations differed, and that's why they were successful. they damned the drink but not the drench -- not the drinker. their cure, such as it was, was based in compassion. based in understanding, not condemnation. they saw fellow citizens suffering from the disease as a friend in need of help, not a helpless sinner.

lincoln contrasted the approach and affect of the washington yeas with their -- washingtonians, with their predecessors, the older reformers, who line con -- who lincoln recalled communicated in the thundering tonals of -- tones of anathema. no matter our political pers persuasion, we're all familiar with those thundering tones. the truth is we're all guilty. we're all guilty of those thundering tones from time to t time. perhaps from time to time those thundering tones are appropriate and necessary and they have a great deal of impact when used sparingly. we're all guilty from time to time for forgetting that we're

erring men and women. lincoln suggested a gentler alternative. it's an old and true maxim, he reasoned, that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall. that's how the hoosier put it. it's that drop of honey, lincoln continued, which draws men and women to our sides, convinces that we are indeed friends. friends. this from one of the most intelligent, successful, effective, polemicists, debaters, litigators, and politicians in all of human history. he regarded his opponents as friends. and this, in his words, is the

great high road to their reason. you will find little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. some lincolnian humility. mixed in with age-old wisdom. now, across our politics and in our media, we seem so convinced sometimes of our justness, of our cause, that it has become invoked to cancel -- it has become in vogue to cancel, a modern term, cancel the other side and chase away those on our own -- on our own who don't see them, the other side, as enemies. tribalism unleashed. where does this dribblistic -- this tribalistic impulse to

cancel and ostracize lead us? it's an easy way to get booked on television these days. it is guaranteed to increase the number of social media followers you have. might even rile up a rally or a crowd from time to time. but abraham lincoln, before the age of social media, predicted exactly where this would lead us. deem a fellow citizen a foe, to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart. it's human nature. and therefore, unchanged and unchangeable. such is a man, he continued, and so must he be understood by

those who would lead him, even to his own best interests. abraham lincoln believed that the american revolution defied human history by proving men and women capable of governing themselves. our original birth of freedom led to the design of a republic, a republic, in which citizens decide what's in their best interests. but determining it often requires passionate, loud, angry deb debates properly circumscribed by a social, moral, ethical fram framework. it includes a balance with generous measures of trust and understanding. in absence of this balance gives

way to discord, and that discord makes us all weaker. collectively weaker. even individually weaker. on the surface, lincoln's speech in 1842 was about a means of combatting alcoholism and achieving reforms. look deeper, though. its passages still today illustrate how we can continue to prove history wrong together. remember, remember the power of reason even in our most passionate arguments. find the empathy to form a bridge to our estranged countrymen. they're out there. and allow forbearance towards those among them we may disagree with, forbearance.

abraham lincoln relied on these values throughout his career, even in america's darkest hour. they remain vital to our national harmony, to our common good. so as we mark the occasion of lincoln's birthday in 2024, we should call on these values once again. thank you. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request. mr. young: yes.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. a senator: madam president, let me start by thank my friend and colleague from indiana for providing those wise words and good example from abraham lincoln. i come to the floor today, madam president, to discuss the national security act which has many important components, including support for ukraine, for israel, and for our country's -- countries in the indo-pacific as well as humanitarian assistance to help respond to crises around the word, including in ukraine, in gaza, the west bank, sudan, and elsewhere. mr. van hollen: it also includes funding for the nonprofit security grants program to better protect those nonprofits

here in the united states, including places of worship that face elevated risks from hate crimes. madam president, i've spoken many times on this floor about the imperative of providing the people of ukraine with more desperately needed military assistance to protect their sovereignty and protect their democracy. we must not abandon them to putin's brutal onslaught. the ukrainian people are putting their blood and their lives on the line to defend their freedom, the least we can do, the least we can do is provide them together with our allies with the weapons and other support they need to do that. and it is not only the freedom of ukraine that is at stake. abandoning the people of ukraine to putin would destroy our credibility with our allies and

our adversaries. it would undermine our word with both friend and foe, not only in europe but around the world. let there be no doubt that president xi is keeping one eye on what happens in ukraine as he keeps the other eye trained on taiwan. to my senate colleagues, you cannot say that you want to deter president xi from attempting the forceable takeover of taiwan if you are prepared to wave the white flag in face of putin's aggression. you can't say you are tough on china if you are weak on russia and putin. this bill also provides important security assistance to partners in the indo-pacific region to protect their sovereignty and support our common vision of a free and open

indo-pacific. as the chair of the senate foreign relations subcommittee on east asia and the pacific, i have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to advance that goal. madam president, today i want to focus the remainder of my remarks on the provisions in the supplemental to provide more u.s. security assistance to israel. the horror of the october 7 hamas terror attacks against israel cannot, must not, and will not be erased or forgotten. about 1200 people were brutally murdered. 240 people were taken hostage. as i have said many times in the aftermath of that heinous attack and those kidnappings, israel not only has the right but the duty to defend itself and take the actions necessary to prevent

any future october 7s. never forget and never again. and i stand steadfastly with the people of israel in pursuing that objective in securing the release of all the hostages. and given the terrible news of the deaths of as many as one-fifth of the remaining hostages, the urgency of bringing the rest home could not be more clear. madam president, i also believe that while it is a just war, a just war must still be fought justly. as president biden, secretary blinken, secretary austin and many others have repeated, how a war is conducted matters. it matters for both moral and strategic reasons. as americans we remember the collective anguish we experienced after the 9/11 terror attacks.

we are also acutely aware of the unintended consequences of strategic overreach stemming from shared anger and pain. these were important lessons, lessons that apply today. we all recognize that hamas' despicable tactic of operating from among the civilian population makes it more difficult to target the enemy, but that does not absolve the netanyahu government of the duty to take necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties. that's why back on december 2 of last year, secretary austin said, and i quote, protecting palestinian civilians in gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic one, unquote. those sentiments were echoed by secretary blinken. in december of last year when he said it is, quote, imperative that israel put a premium on

civilian protection, unquote, and the secretary of state has emphasized that point repeatedly since then. nor does the horror of the october 7 attack justify the humanitarian catastrophe in gaza, a catastrophe that began when the netanyahu government imposed a total siege on the people in that very narrow strip of land and that has continued as his coalition places unnecessary obstacles in the way of getting vital, desperately needed lifesaving assistance to innocent civilians there. over two million palestinian civilians who have nothing to do with hamas are on the verge of starvation and need help to survive. that is why secretary blinken has emphasized the importance of getting, quote, more humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need

it in gaza. madam president, the situation is awful and it is getting worse by the day. and to those who say all this aid is being diverted to hamas, let me just say that is factually untrue, and i want to read a statement that i received not that long ago from ambassador sadderfield who is our humanitarian coordinator in charge of humanitarian assistance to gaza. his statement reads, and i quote, to date i have not received any allegations, evidence, or reports of any incidents of hamas diversion or theft of u.s. or other assistance or fuel from u.n.-delivered assistance from any of our partners or from the government of israel since the humanitarian assistance resumed in gaza on october 21. madam president, i ask that his

full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: unfortunately, madam president, the biden administration's urgent pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears with netanyahu's coalition. just a few days ago we saw secretary blinken in jerusalem meeting with prime minister netanyahu urging that israel not take military action in rafah. it's a city right on the egyptian-gaza border. before the war started there were about 3,000, 4,000 people in gaza. today you have about 1.4 million people crammed into gaza because

over a million people who have been displaced from other parts of gaza went to rafah because they told it was a -- they were told it was a safe place to go. but despite what secretary blinken said and despite the fact that just the other day john kirby, the national security spokesman, said that the united states would not support a major military operation in rafah, nevertheless within hours of secretary blinken meeting with the prime minister, prime minister netanyahu said that they're going to go into rafah. it's just one of many, many examples, madam president, of where our requests have been rebuffed. we've made some incremental progress from time to time. for example, after many, many requests and urgings, we saw a

while back the long delayed reopening of the karem sholom crossing to allow more trucks. but the reality is the number of trucks and amount of aid getting into gaza is nowhere near what is necessary to meet the dire humanitarian situation. heefrp we are four months into this war and over 27,000 palestinians have been killed. over two-thirds of them women and children. and that does not include those who are still buried beneath the rubble. west bryant who helped lead the u.s. targeting against isis has written about the unacceptably high levels of civilian casualties in gaza. and i ask unanimous consent to place his op-ed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: it is not only the extremely high civilian death toll, it is the over 27 -- excuse me, the over 67,000 wounded, the over 1.7 million displaced. it's the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, mosques, and churches. it is the toll from humanitarian aid workers killed and journalists killed. the level of death and destruction in gaza is simply inhumane. for just one small but still powerful example, i urge my colleagues to read "the washington post" story from last friday, a week ago, about a 6-year-old girl, hindu, who is trying to get to safety in a car with her aunt, her uncle and her five young cousins. the car was hit by tank fire and all of those who were in the car

with hindu died. she was severely injured. and she got on a phone to try to call for help. and there are recordings of her calls for help. as her family members lie dead around her in the car. the last recording on the phone call she made to paramedics who were unable to reach her were, quote, come and take me. she was killed. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that this article be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: millions of palestinians are desperately trying to cling to life as we speak here.

i've met with the leaders of international humanitarian organizations who have operated in conflict zones around the globe for decades and decades. every one of them has stated that their organizations have never -- never experienced a humanitarian disaster as dire and terrible as the world is witnessing in gaza. that's why five weeks ago senator merkley and i traveled to the rafah border crossing between egypt and gaza to see for ourselves what was happening, to talk to people on the ground. what we saw and learned indicated that palestinians -- palestinian civilians are on the verge of starvation, that injured children are having their limbs amputated without anesthesia, that sewage continues to spill into the streets and contaminated water supplies, and health officials are warning of the imminent outbreak of cholera and other

diseases. diseases like disen-terry are -- disentary are already rampant. that's why many wrote to president biden last week urging to do more to push the coalition, to allow more desperately needed as soon as possible to reach innocent civilians in gaza. we outlined five specific measures that need to be taken immediately. that was not the first time many of us wrote to president biden to express our concerns about the conduct of the war in gaza. we wrote to the president over three months ago posing a series of questions, including what mechanisms are in place to ensure that u.s.-provided equipment is used in accordance with international humanitarian law.

we did that because the united states is not a bystander in that conflict -- in this conflict. israel is the largest annual recipient of u.s. security assistance, totalling more than $39 billion over the last ten years alone. and right now bombs and artillery made in america and paid for by americans are being used in gaza. so the united states government and the united states senate has an obligation to the american people to ensure that their tax dollars, our tax dollars are used in a manner that alliance with our -- aligns with our values and aligns with our interests. that is why 19 senators filed an amendment to the national security act -- the supplemental national security provision that's before the senate now and soon will be considered.

that's why we filed an amendment to ensure that all recipients of u.s. military assistance in that bill, whether ukraine, whether israel, or whether it's one of our east asian partners, use these u.s. taxpayer dollars -- use them in line with our values and our interests. our amendment is designed to create an accountability structure, to ensure that countries that receive u.s. security assistance promise to adhere to humanitarian law and other applicable law. it is designed to ensure that recipients of u.s. assistance promise to help facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of u.s.-supported humanitarian assistance in conflict zones and our amendment included a provision to maintain accountability by requiring

reporting be presented and provided to the congress on whether or not the recipients of u.s. military assistance were in fact complying with those commitments on international law and allowing humanitarian aid to flow to conflict zones. and, importantly, madam president, the reporting requirements in our amendment also require information and assessment about whether recipient countries, countries receiving u.s. military aid, are employing best practices to prevent civilian harm. that's what our amendment does, and we filed that amendment to this bill just a few days ago. in the meantime, since we first proposed this amendment in december, we've remained in regular communication with the biden administration. and i want to thank all my

colleagues who've cosponsored this amendment. including the original cosponsors, senator kaine, senator durbin, senator schatz, but also 15 other colleagues, including the presiding officer, who joined together in this effort to call for an amendment that made sure that we better align our military assistance with our values. now, our amendment applied these requirements to every country receiving military assistance in the supplemental national security bill, but our intention all along has been to expand this world-wide, to make sure that, as the united states uses taxpayer dollars to provide security assistance to countries around the world, that we can

tell those taxpayers that their money is being used and the military equipment purchased with their money is being used in a manner consistent with our values. and we begin that conversation with the president's team at the white house. we had a chance to talk with them about our goals and the purposes of the amendment. and at the time we introduced this amendment, we said our goal is to get these provisions implemented, whether through amendment or through other means. and, madam president, i want to salute the president of the united states, president biden, because just last night at 8:30 p.m., the president issued an historic national security

memorandum, national security memorandum number 30o i'd like to have that included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection u --. mr. van hollen: what this does is effectively implement the terms of our amendment. it makes the terms of that amendment effectively the law of the land. and it does other things as well. i not only want to salute president biden, i want to salute his national security advisor jake sullivan, the entire nsc team and the entire white house team for taking this very important, deliberate, historic action. it is a very big deal. what does it do? well, as our amendment pushes forward in a number of big

areas. first, it requires that every recipient of u.s. military assistance promise in writing before receiving that military assistance that they will comply with international humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law. they have to promise in writing to do that before the delivery of u.s. military assistance. number two, that every recipient of u.s. military assistance must promise in writing to facilitate and not to arbitrarily restrict the delivery of u.s.-supported humanitarian assistance into conflict zones where u.s. weapons are being used by the recipient country. that promise also has to be made before the delivery of that military assistance. and this national security memorandum has enforcement

mechanisms to ensure compliance and to make sure that the united states government has the tools to take action in cases of noncompliance. it focuses in the first instance on countries that are currently in armed conflict and using u.s. weapons. that would include israel, it would include ukraine, it would include other countries that today are using u.s. weapons in conflict zones. and it indicates that if those countries do not make these assurances -- make those programs within the next 45 days, u.s. security assistance will be suspended. it also has a provision that says the secretary of state will inform the president of the united states if there's any information that the recipient countries that have made these promises are not keeping those promises to the american people

and the american taxpayer. and when the secretary of state makes any such notification to the president, the congress will be informed. the national security memorandum also has the robust reporting requi requirements included in our proposed amendment to help monitor compliance with the promises made by the recipient countries. their promises to use u.s. military assistance in accordance with international humanitarian law and other international laws as applicable. their promises to facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance. the report will tell the congress whether or not those countries are in fact doing those things and provide an a. ssessment -- and provide an assessment of what's happening. the report will also include other provisions called for in

our amendment. one of them very importantly is that the report must assess and analyze whether or not the recipient countries that are engaged in armed conflict are deploying and using best practices to prevent civilian harm. i'll say that again. this report will require an assessment and analysis of whether countries that are receiving u.s. military assistance, engaged in armed conflict now, whether or not they are employing best practices to prevent civilian harm. the national security memorandum prioritizes reporting on countries that are currently using weapons -- using u.s. weapons in armed conflict. for those countries, the first report will be due in 90 days. those countries include ukraine,

include israel, and any other countries that are using u.s. weapons in armed conflict today. and very importantly, madam president, the reporting period that is covered will be a reporting time frame starting january of 2023. so congress will receive a report in 90 days on whether or not the recipients of u.s. military assistance are in compliance throughout last year and on into this year with those requirements set out in the national security memorandum, requirements that we had in our amendment. so, madam president, this really is an historic moment. this is a transformational moment in making sure we align u.s. security assistance with

american values. it's a very sweeping memorandum. as of 8:30 p.m., it is the law of the land. -- in the united states of america. and it will give the president of the united states many more tools and more leverage to better ensure that countries that are using u.s. military assistance comply with the commitments they now have to make in writing. whether it's ukraine, whether it's israel, whether it's another country. and i spoke a little bit earlier about the fact that despite repeated requests from the biden administration of the netanyahu coalition to reduce the level of civilian casualties, to allow more humanitarian assistance into gaza, that for the most part, with